Facts
[B.] recovered the wallet that [A.] had forgotten in a telephone booth while intoxicated. The Cantonal Court convicted [B.] of theft. [B.] filed an appeal for nullity against this judgment. The SCC dismissed the appeal for nullity. Although [B.] was under guardianship, he had the capacity of discernment and could therefore mandate a lawyer of his choice to file this appeal, in accordance with Art. 19(2) CC. On the merits, the SCC considered that [A.] had not lost possession of his wallet forgotten in the telephone booth, and that [B.] had therefore committed theft by taking it, thus fulfilling the constitutive elements of Art. 137 SCC.Considerations
According to Art. 19(2) CC, persons under interdiction who have the capacity of discernment can independently exercise the strictly personal rights that belong to them. The SCC ruled that the right of a convicted person to file a federal appeal for nullity was a right of this nature, which [B.] could therefore exercise alone despite his guardianship, provided he had the capacity of discernment.
On…