Facts
The Criminal Court of the Canton of Lucerne found X. and Y. guilty of multiple (eventual) intentional homicide, failure to control the vehicle, multiple speeding offenses in urban and non-urban areas, and failure to adjust speed to road and traffic conditions. The two defendants engaged in a spontaneous car race, where they mutually encouraged each other to higher speeds. The accident occurred when X. attempted to overtake at a speed of around 120-140 km/h and lost control of the vehicle. Two juvenile pedestrians were killed.
X. and Y. appealed the verdict, but the Higher Court of the Canton of Lucerne dismissed their appeals and confirmed the initial verdict. X. and Y. then filed a constitutional complaint and a federal appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the conclusion of acting with eventual intent was consistent with federal law. It found that X. and Y. had engaged in a car race, where they tried to outdo each other in driving skills and vehicle performance. The court determined that X. and Y. must have been aware of the consequences of such driving and yet acted despite knowing the risk of an accident.
The court discussed the distinction between eventual intent and conscious negligence and found that X. and Y. had seriously considered the possibility of the outcome. It determined that X. and Y. had decided against the legal good and no longer trusted in a…