Facts
The case concerns an individual, V., who was convicted of serious bodily harm, threats, and violation of domicile after attacking his ex-girlfriend, [F.], by grabbing her throat and slamming her to the ground several times. [F.] suffered scratches, bruises, and a lip contusion, but experts estimated that her life had not been concretely endangered. The Correctional Court of the district of Morges sentenced V. to 3 years of imprisonment, but V. filed a nullity appeal with the SCC, arguing that the facts did not constitute serious bodily harm.
The facts of the case are as follows: V. had a romantic relationship with [F.], but after [F.] broke up with him, V. began to harass her. On March 27, 1995, V. went to F.'s apartment and attacked her, grabbing her throat and slamming her to the ground several times. [F.] managed to free herself and called for help. Experts estimated that the injuries suffered by [F.] were consistent with a strangulation, but that F.'s life had not been concretely endangered.
Considerations
The SCC examined V.'s nullity appeal and concluded that the facts did not constitute serious bodily harm within the meaning of art. 122 SCC. The Court estimated that the injuries suffered by [F.] did not create an immediate danger of death and that V. had not intentionally caused injuries that would have endangered F.'s life.
The Court also examined the issue of endangering the life of another person and concluded that art. 129 SCC was more appropriate for qualifying the facts. The Court estimated that the victim had suffered injuries, but that they could not…