Facts
Parties:
- [A.] (appellant), represented by attorney Dr. Elias Hofstetter
- Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern and [B.] (respondents), represented by attorney Philipp Studer
Facts:
- The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern convicted [A.] with a penalty order dated June 10, 2021, for property damage to a fine and penalty.
- [A.] filed an objection and an appeal, which were dismissed by the Regional Court Oberland and the Higher Court of the Canton of Bern.
- The allegation concerns an incident on October 18, 2020, in which [A.] allegedly damaged the windshield of [B.] 's vehicle with his walking stick.
- [B.] was acquitted of the charge of negligent bodily harm but convicted of a minor traffic violation.
- [A.] appealed against the judgment of the Higher Court dated July 1, 2024, which convicted him of property damage.
Considerations
The appellant complains of a violation of the principle of legality, as the indictment was not clear enough about which encounter the property damage is alleged to have occurred. However, the Federal Supreme Court finds that the indictment sufficiently precisely describes the facts, allowing the appellant to defend himself adequately. The complaint is dismissed as unfounded.
The appellant challenges the finding of his fitness to stand trial by the lower court. The Federal Supreme Court notes that the lower court rightly affirmed the appellant's fitness to stand trial, as his testimony showed no signs of impairment and the medical certificate did not confirm his unfitness to stand trial. The complaint is dismissed as unfounded.
The appellant complains of a violation of his right to submit evidence, as the…