Application of the principle in dubio pro reo in circumstantial evidence and qualification of intentional homicide as murder

Facts

In the early morning of 24 March 2013, the accused X. stabbed A., the owner of restaurant B. in C., to death in the latter’s premises. Before leaving the crime scene, X. stole a shopping bag containing cash amounting to CHF 9,250.

The Uri District Court convicted X. on 8 September 2015 of murder and theft and sentenced him to a custodial sentence of 16 years and to an accompanying outpatient measure. X. appealed, requesting that he be found guilty of intentional homicide (and theft) and sentenced to a custodial sentence of eight years. The Uri Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a cross-appeal and requested that the appeal be dismissed, that X. be found guilty of aggravated robbery in several respects and sentenced to a custodial sentence of 17 years.

On 8 March 2017, the Uri Higher Court found X. guilty of intentional homicide and theft and reduced the custodial sentence to 12 years. The cross-appeal of the Public Prosecutor’s Office was dismissed.

The Uri Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a criminal appeal and requested that X. be convicted of murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to a custodial sentence of 17 years. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the application of the principle in dubio pro reo as a standard of proof and decision-making rule by the lower court. The principle only applies after all relevant evidence has been taken and assessed. It is not used for the collection or review of evidence, but for the final assessment of the evidence. A violation of the principle only occurs if the court convicts despite obvious, significant doubts about the accused’s guilt.

In the present case, the issue was the qualification of the intentional homicide as murder under Art. 112 SCC. The Public Prosecutor’s Office based its case on the hypothesis of a robbery-murder, while the lower court considered a scenario of an escalated argument as possible. The Federal Supreme Court emphasised that circumstantial evidence must not be interpreted one-sidedly in favour of the prosecution’s guilt hypothesis. Instead, serious alternative factual scenarios must be considered and examined. Only if the robbery-murder hypothesis is free from insurmountable doubts can it serve as the basis for the qualification.

The lower court’s assessment of the evidence was deemed free from arbitrariness and comprehensive. It took into account the accused’s mental impairment,…