Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant 1 ([A.] ): Private plaintiff, represented by attorney Anna Schuler-Scheurer.
  • Appellant 3 ([B.] ): Defendant, represented by attorney Martin Schnyder.
  • Appellant 2 (Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich): Prosecutor's office, represented by public prosecutor.
  • Appellant 4 ([C.] ): Private plaintiff, represented by attorney Beatrice Benz.

Facts:

On October 27, 2020, [B.] drove a VW Passat towards [A.] , who then jumped onto the hood and injured himself. [B.] drove away in reverse and forward. [A.] and [C.] filed claims for damages and compensation. The District Court of Pfäffikon found [B.] guilty of gross violation of traffic regulations, attempted threat, and attempted coercion, and imposed an unconditional prison sentence of 28 months. The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich reduced the sentence to 14 months and found [B.] guilty of qualified simple bodily harm, multiple threats, and attempted coercion.

Main allegations:

  • Qualified simple bodily harm against [A.] .
  • Multiple threats and attempted coercion against [C.] .
  • Arbitrary findings of fact and insufficient reasoning by the Higher Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court combined the proceedings as they are closely related in substance and directed against the same decision. Appellants 1 and 2 criticized the Higher Court's findings of fact as arbitrary, particularly the assumption that the VW was stationary or moving very slowly when it encountered [A.] . The Federal Supreme Court found that the Higher Court's evaluation of the evidence was incomplete and arbitrary, as it did not consider all relevant evidence and did not provide sufficient reasoning for its conclusions. The previous instance should have included further evidence, such as the statements of the parties involved and an expert opinion.

Regarding the convictions for multiple threats and attempted coercion against [C.] , Appellant 3 criticized the Higher Court's evaluation of the evidence as insufficient. The Federal Supreme Court found that the Higher Court had not sufficiently evaluated the statements of [C.] and had not provided a comprehensible reasoning for the credibility of these statements. The reasoning of the Higher Court…