Dismissal of appeal against conviction for multiple sexual acts with institutional wards and exploitation of a state of distress

Facts

Parties:

• Appellant: [A.] , represented by attorney Stefan Semela
• Respondents: 1. Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Solothurn, 2. [B.] , represented by attorney Eveline Roos

Facts:

[A.] is accused of having committed multiple sexual acts with [B.] , an institutional ward, between October/November 2013 and March 2016. [B.] was emotionally dependent on [A.] and felt unable to refuse the sexual acts. The Higher Court of the Canton of Solothurn sentenced [A.] to a conditional prison term of 24 months and a professional ban for ten years.

Appeal:

[A.] requests the annulment of the judgment and his acquittal. He denies the allegations and argues that no dependency existed and that he did not exploit it.

Considerations

The appellant challenges the evidence assessment of the lower court as arbitrary and violates the principle "in dubio pro reo". The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court conducted a thorough and comprehensible evidence assessment and that the appellant's claims are not substantiated. The complaints are unfounded.

The appellant objects to the conviction for multiple sexual acts with institutional wards pursuant to Art. 192 para. 1 SCC. The lower court finds that the appellant was the most important reference person for the respondent 2 and that a dependency relationship existed. The appellant exploited this relationship to commit sexual acts. The Federal Supreme Court confirms the findings of the lower court and establishes that the appellant exploited the dependency of the respondent 2.

The appellant denies having exploited any…