Facts
The case concerns a driver, R., who was convicted of driving under the influence. On December 19, 1989, R. drove his vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 2.39 per mille. He stopped on the road and slept in his vehicle after placing the ignition key in the glove compartment. R. had already been convicted twice for driving under the influence in 1981 and 1983.
The Horgen district court sentenced R. to two months in prison with probation, but the Zurich cantonal court refused the probation. The SCC annulled this judgment and referred the case for re-examination. The cantonal court then sentenced R. to two months in prison with probation, but granted a probation period of four years.
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Zurich filed a nullity appeal, arguing that the cantonal court had not ordered a psychiatric expertise to determine R.'s responsibility.
Considerations
The SCC examined the question of whether the cantonal court had violated Article 13 of the Swiss Criminal Code by not ordering a psychiatric expertise. The court considered that, in principle, a psychiatric expertise must be ordered when serious doubts exist about the responsibility of a drunk driver.
However, the court also considered that, in this case, it was not necessary to order a psychiatric expertise, as there were no other indicators than the blood alcohol concentration to assess R.'s responsibility. The court also noted that the driver had a blood alcohol concentration of at least 2.39 per mille, which is considered a state of strong intoxication.
The court concluded that, in these circumstances, there…