Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Discjuggler Must Reboot Computer
homework in preparation for the criminal omission
Under the heating
M and F have been married for many years. As F is an evening to 1 clock outputs from one of her many home, she finds the M in an awkward position. M had tried to clean the radiator in the bathroom and had became so under the - cranked and thus very hot - heater down, that he had pinched himself and could not free himself. F recognizes the seriousness of the situation and is aware that M could die from the heat and burns. However, they can not bring themselves to help him, because M is the F in the past had often deceived. Therefore, she leaves the house again and goes for a beer to a friend. At that time, M would have been saved. Then T and S come home, who wants two adult children of M and S F. While helping his father immediately, the T seems favorable opportunity to take revenge on her father. Because T has suffered itself for years among the ill-treatment of M. Therefore, it pulls the ado over the phone available in S a room and locks him there. T itself remains in the apartment and sits before the TV. Even at the time M would have been more help. In the meantime, the F but had concerns. She is reminded of the good times of her marriage to M, and concludes that M had such a late appearance but deserved. It calls for an ambulance immediately and does hurry back home. There, they will at least alleviate the pain of the M by cooling until the arrival of the emergency physician. F meets there a clock by 2. The ambulance arrives at a forward but now everything necessary. However, M died by 3 clock in the hospital.
criminality of F and T?
Structural design: The spurious omission offense
0th Preliminary assessment (proposal deferred until the bottom of the first event only intellectually, but also about acceptable.)
a) act or omission alleged as a starting point? (By hM-gravity theory, where the focus of the action?)
b) proper or improper omission offense?
I. FACTS:
1) success (eg death of another human being at § 212)
2) "fails" the culprit?
a) M. h. After failing at failure to carry out the obj to prevent success. necessary and legally necessary action to the word meaning given to only when a physical-real (is some cases even required, which the option must be legally permitted, but only for strictly legal obligations, such as transfer of ownership is) turning away possible. When are unclear, clarify if necessary act or omission alleged acts as a link? (? After hM gravity theory, where the focus of the culpability lies - Criteria: Direct causation before omission, intent shifts the focus))
Structural design: The spurious omission offense
0th Preliminary assessment (proposal deferred until the bottom of the first event only intellectually, but also about acceptable.)
a) act or omission alleged as a starting point? (By hM-gravity theory, where the focus of the action?)
b) proper or improper omission offense?
I. FACTS:
1) success (eg death of another human being at § 212)
2) "fails" the culprit?
a) M. h. After failing at failure to carry out the obj to prevent success. necessary and legally necessary action to the word meaning given to only when a physical-real (is some cases even required, which the option must be legally permitted, but only for strictly legal obligations, such as transfer of ownership is) turning away possible. When are unclear, clarify if necessary act or omission alleged acts as a link? (? After hM gravity theory, where the focus of the culpability lies - Criteria: Direct causation before omission, intent shifts the focus))
[After a. A. averting possible only a matter of duty to guarantee: the action is legally necessary, if the offender has a duty to act. Minimum requirement for this duty is the hypothetical causal link between failure and success.]
b) "quasi-causality: only if the expected action's success can also prevent (the possibility of another person (perpetrator) to avert the occurrence of the success (or safety only risk reduction Str Sch / Sch / Stree § 13 Rnd 61?. )
3) duty to guarantee
a) guarantee for the return: Actual circumstances giving rise to the obligation.
b) standards, or other groups of cases: the perpetrator must also be committed because of this property to make such action. If the offender has a particular duty, because it must guarantee the right property damaged. Eg
family members with each other, force legal duty policeman Doctors are controversial for violation of his obligations earlier conduct (Inge Renz), other groups of cases (in contract, risk community, profession). (Abstract obligation and duty to guarantee the real property together justify in that case, much of this terminology is a mess)
4) intent with respect to 1 a) (may be wrong about the conditions of a guarantee for the return or other factual circumstances. According to M. h. must belong to the intent merely establish the guarantee position, that the factual circumstances, a duty, not the obligation, that would be a Subsumtionsirrtum and thus a mistake of law pursuant to § 17 I StGB. A. a., normative criterion, reasonable)
5) equivalence of imaginary action and omission (§ 13), particularly in terms of way of completion. Very soft criterion.
is used in specially formulated actions: driver
example, statements etc.
II UNLAWFUL
Possibly. Unjustifiable conflict of duty (not eligible)
III. DEBT
first As with the intentional commission of offense
second Reasonableness standard obligations (H. M., M. m. to examine facts already in the [then before the equivalence clause, ideally under I. 3 after the mental element]). Here, only cases are concerned, sacrifice in which the perpetrator's own legal interests need to save the victim, without thereby reducing the chances of recovery significantly [otherwise have no quasi-causality] Example: Mother silk sweater must perish for child rescue = + reasonableness. save mother has a child from injury, and herself to hurt also rescue the child from moderately hazardous dachshund bite, with the mother but would bite even reasonable -)
b) "quasi-causality: only if the expected action's success can also prevent (the possibility of another person (perpetrator) to avert the occurrence of the success (or safety only risk reduction Str Sch / Sch / Stree § 13 Rnd 61?. )
3) duty to guarantee
a) guarantee for the return: Actual circumstances giving rise to the obligation.
b) standards, or other groups of cases: the perpetrator must also be committed because of this property to make such action. If the offender has a particular duty, because it must guarantee the right property damaged. Eg
family members with each other, force legal duty policeman Doctors are controversial for violation of his obligations earlier conduct (Inge Renz), other groups of cases (in contract, risk community, profession). (Abstract obligation and duty to guarantee the real property together justify in that case, much of this terminology is a mess)
4) intent with respect to 1 a) (may be wrong about the conditions of a guarantee for the return or other factual circumstances. According to M. h. must belong to the intent merely establish the guarantee position, that the factual circumstances, a duty, not the obligation, that would be a Subsumtionsirrtum and thus a mistake of law pursuant to § 17 I StGB. A. a., normative criterion, reasonable)
5) equivalence of imaginary action and omission (§ 13), particularly in terms of way of completion. Very soft criterion.
is used in specially formulated actions: driver
example, statements etc.
II UNLAWFUL
Possibly. Unjustifiable conflict of duty (not eligible)
III. DEBT
first As with the intentional commission of offense
second Reasonableness standard obligations (H. M., M. m. to examine facts already in the [then before the equivalence clause, ideally under I. 3 after the mental element]). Here, only cases are concerned, sacrifice in which the perpetrator's own legal interests need to save the victim, without thereby reducing the chances of recovery significantly [otherwise have no quasi-causality] Example: Mother silk sweater must perish for child rescue = + reasonableness. save mother has a child from injury, and herself to hurt also rescue the child from moderately hazardous dachshund bite, with the mother but would bite even reasonable -)
offense to T:
The daughter would be liable to prosecution for actions, because it breaks off from his rescue efforts. If you break your own from the focus on the omission. Failure to do so differences according to the teachings of the consistent holdings of the constituent level already! (AA law unit)
The daughter would be liable to prosecution for actions, because it breaks off from his rescue efforts. If you break your own from the focus on the omission. Failure to do so differences according to the teachings of the consistent holdings of the constituent level already! (AA law unit)
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Ativan,trazodone,and Lunesta
criminal omission II
reading dictation:
For the mock exam of previous material to repeat!
more information on failure:
Supreme Court apartment as a death trap
BGHSt 38, 356 ff (railroad track case) \u0026lt;- Absolute reading requirement (also short)!
Federal Supreme Court on radiator case (Lösung!)
proposed solution to the case, "Black Forest Clinic" (Download. Ppt, author Lisa Weigel) is considering how the definition accommodate act / omission better in the case of construction, in Solution there is a "preliminary investigation", I think that is allowed, but not very elegant. Why and what is against such a screening?
"listeners" in a comment below asked what the theory "not an attempt at criminal omission?" is tuned. Here is the answer of the Supreme Court of 2000..
".. why is only the attempt of a homicide (by omission) in question, the attempt of a fake omission offense is punishable (see BGHSt 38, 356, 358 with further references). Whether in cases of omission of the "test disabled" is punishable, at least in the literature for individual cases in dispute (as explained in BGHSt 38, 356, 359). The Senate has in its order dated 16th July 1993 - 2 StR 294/93 (= NStZ 1994, 29) has held that in similar cases, a criminal trial may be unsuitable given. On this is to be recorded. " 
reading dictation:
For the mock exam of previous material to repeat!
more information on failure:
Supreme Court apartment as a death trap
BGHSt 38, 356 ff (railroad track case) \u0026lt;- Absolute reading requirement (also short)!
Federal Supreme Court on radiator case (Lösung!)
proposed solution to the case, "Black Forest Clinic" (Download. Ppt, author Lisa Weigel) is considering how the definition accommodate act / omission better in the case of construction, in Solution there is a "preliminary investigation", I think that is allowed, but not very elegant. Why and what is against such a screening?
"listeners" in a comment below asked what the theory "not an attempt at criminal omission?" is tuned. Here is the answer of the Supreme Court of 2000..
".. why is only the attempt of a homicide (by omission) in question, the attempt of a fake omission offense is punishable (see BGHSt 38, 356, 358 with further references). Whether in cases of omission of the "test disabled" is punishable, at least in the literature for individual cases in dispute (as explained in BGHSt 38, 356, 359). The Senate has in its order dated 16th July 1993 - 2 StR 294/93 (= NStZ 1994, 29) has held that in similar cases, a criminal trial may be unsuitable given. On this is to be recorded. "
What Is A Sunfish Sailboat Hull?
Search Engine
Lest you
JUSMEUM - legal communications 2.0
is four weeks ago, the new legal website www.jusmeum.de went to the start JUSMEUM has set itself the goal. to be the first point on the Internet for lawyers and litigants.
combines JUSMEUM To this end, a legal search engine, a network feed (as with Facebook and Twitter), a presentation opportunity through user profiles, and more on a global approach of the legal communication 2.0.
The search engine is for lawyers already so better than Google because it only reflects the legal content of the Internet (for example, the total above-court case law, legal blog posts Open access publications, articles from professors, and more scans) and this sorted by legal criteria. In addition, the same result in the document type (eg "Court") and displays the most frequently mentioned legislation. Very practical.
over the network feed can they found content to the other participants to present and discuss together.
The presentation features allow such students and trainees to present themselves for internships and career lawyers, prosecutors could introduce potential clients that science can be networked into practice and vice versa. Overall JUSMEUM 770 registered members already have in this short time and apparently growing rapidly.
Best of all JUSMEUM is free!
I recommend everyone to register!
Friday, May 14, 2010
Denise Milani In Long Dress
read command
the omission offenses by the chapter in a textbook of your choice.
as basic tips I recommend:
Maiwald, Jus 1981, p. 473 and Schünemann ZStW 96, 287 Scheffler, to participate in the suicide
law:
OLG Hamm - lifeguards
BGH Detective
BGH clean Schiffer
BGH defense
BGHSt 27, 10 assault in apartment
BGH Road
BGH heroin release BGHSt 33, 66
BGH Divorce
BGH I ngerenz despite complicity binge? 
the omission offenses by the chapter in a textbook of your choice.
as basic tips I recommend:
Maiwald, Jus 1981, p. 473 and Schünemann ZStW 96, 287 Scheffler, to participate in the suicide
law:
OLG Hamm - lifeguards
BGH Detective
BGH clean Schiffer
BGH defense
BGHSt 27, 10 assault in apartment
BGH Road
BGH heroin release BGHSt 33, 66
BGH Divorce
BGH I ngerenz despite complicity binge?
Forced To Smell My Foot
Another case to the criminal omission
Another case of omission:
Xavier (X) is seriously ill and is in a coma. In the still sane state he has stated that he requested the termination of life support if he has to live only a few days and there is no prospect of improvement. When that time came, consulted the doctor in charge of Prof. Brinkmann members of Xavier, who had knowledge of his last wish. Together discontinuation of treatment is decided. Then switched Prof. Brinkmann heart-lung machine to Xavier is connected from. A little later, Xavier died in the Black Forest clinic.
penalty of Professor Brinkmann?
modification
Does anything change when Brinkmann X with manual cardiac massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation alive and then stop doing it even though it was no agreement or out of Brinkmann himself? (Are other tools, it is not just tired and Brinkmann). 
Another case of omission:
penalty of Professor Brinkmann?
modification
Does anything change when Brinkmann X with manual cardiac massage and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation alive and then stop doing it even though it was no agreement or out of Brinkmann himself? (Are other tools, it is not just tired and Brinkmann).
Lots Of Phlegm In Morning
negligence
The world of negligent offenses
the Criminal Code, although negligence is an important criterion, as in § § 222, 229, 18, etc. Also, it is determined in § 15 that negligence punished only if it is explicitly driven (BT). A standard such as § 16 I, the precise details as to the content of the intention is there, unfortunately not for the negligence, at least not in the Penal Code. "Negligence" must be filled out but somehow content. After
hM is the core crimes of negligent breach of duty of care. This can be done haranziehen the Civil Code or similar assume that the drafters of the Penal Code have known from the civil law concept of negligence tacitly assumed.
hM is the core crimes of negligent breach of duty of care. This can be done haranziehen the Civil Code or similar assume that the drafters of the Penal Code have known from the civil law concept of negligence tacitly assumed.
§ 276 II BGB
" acts negligently if he to observe the relevant normalized care disregard. "
has to look like the care that results in" substantially "from the duties of care in other areas of law are. How to behave in traffic, for example, says the Highway Code.
What is negligence?
§ 276 II BGB: The disregard of due diligence?
What is required? Who determines the necessary care?
Civil Law: the ordinary traffic circle
Criminal Law: care standards from other areas, such as road traffic regulations, ordinances etc. But the standards are partially constrained for criminal liability, or lead to the criminalization of licentiousness! eg "injuries in javelin in physical education must be avoided at schools" would apply this standard would javelin generally prohibited, but it should not be straight. Therefore only indicative effect
, such evidence may be rebutted by the recording instrument of "objective attribution. It then goes from not having a duty of care is breached and the success is causally attributable to the negligent act.
Rather, a careful average Observer instead of the offender (hence objective) also have predicted the success need for admission and cogent evidence. This is the obj. her zurechnugn known spot "atypical causal histories," we can and must not be prepared for all possible eventualities, however absurd. This can and should have foreseen according to M. h. already eliminated the criminally relevant duty of care violation! (So item 4 in the testing scheme)
Success admission must be recognized also by the protective purpose of the criminal law standard of care external (protective purpose of the standard) and (hypothetical) lawful Alternative behavior may not just lead to success caused by the offender (Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang). Next play the interference of third parties or eigenverantwortlcieh Selsbtgefährduing a role. (It then goes to the obj. Zurechnugn in the narrow sense, that is the point 5, a largely unwritten Tatbestandsmerkamel. The fact is must be the work of the perpetrator. Only the Pflichtwidirgkeitszusammenhang still hiding in the little word ...." by 'negligence caused ...
there are no special standards must be found based on experience sets a special duty of care. Such is, if concrete evidence objectively according to experience or to the increased special knowledge of the offender to the legal right or cause injury are still not generally allowed, and had therefore held a special ennen average person in the situation of the perpetrator of the act. So here is a before seeing PERMIT and must be studied.
, such evidence may be rebutted by the recording instrument of "objective attribution. It then goes from not having a duty of care is breached and the success is causally attributable to the negligent act.
Rather, a careful average Observer instead of the offender (hence objective) also have predicted the success need for admission and cogent evidence. This is the obj. her zurechnugn known spot "atypical causal histories," we can and must not be prepared for all possible eventualities, however absurd. This can and should have foreseen according to M. h. already eliminated the criminally relevant duty of care violation! (So item 4 in the testing scheme)
Success admission must be recognized also by the protective purpose of the criminal law standard of care external (protective purpose of the standard) and (hypothetical) lawful Alternative behavior may not just lead to success caused by the offender (Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang). Next play the interference of third parties or eigenverantwortlcieh Selsbtgefährduing a role. (It then goes to the obj. Zurechnugn in the narrow sense, that is the point 5, a largely unwritten Tatbestandsmerkamel. The fact is must be the work of the perpetrator. Only the Pflichtwidirgkeitszusammenhang still hiding in the little word ...." by 'negligence caused ...
there are no special standards must be found based on experience sets a special duty of care. Such is, if concrete evidence objectively according to experience or to the increased special knowledge of the offender to the legal right or cause injury are still not generally allowed, and had therefore held a special ennen average person in the situation of the perpetrator of the act. So here is a before seeing PERMIT and must be studied.
Detailed examination scheme negligence
1.Täter, Taterfolg and other specific offense characteristics
wrong 2.Handlung the offender
3 . causal link between action and success
4.Objektive care Deficiency objective foreseeability of the success and the main causal history (objective = careful Durschnittsperson from the roundabout of the offender)
a) limit the duty of care by Illegal risk and
b) principle of confidence
a) limit the duty of care by Illegal risk and
b) principle of confidence
5.Objektiver attribution relation between action risks and success
a) protective purpose of the standard
b) self-responsible self-endangerment
c) Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang (legitimate alternative behaviors, avoidance str.)
a) protective purpose of the standard
b) self-responsible self-endangerment
c) Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang (legitimate alternative behaviors, avoidance str.)
II illegality
How willful offense absent-justification?
III. Debt
1.Schuldfähigkeit, § § 19-21
2.Spezielle debt characteristics
3.Subjektiver care violation of subjective foreseeability of the causal history and success
scale = personal knowledge and skills of the offender
scale = personal knowledge and skills of the offender
4.Fehlen excuse of the wrong reasons
5.Möglichkeit consciousness, § 17
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Curtains For Burgundy Walls
preparation for the 5th hour: negligence
following literature should be at least read to prepare for this AG hour (or part of the follow-up, if your does not create the universe, or better, before)
first Court: a) BGHSt, 11, 1 Biker case (§ 222, risk realization Pflichtwidrigkeitszusammenhang, benefit of the doubt)
b) NStZ BGH 1985, 25 Stechapfeltee (§ § 222, 227, objective accountability, free and responsible self-endangerment, (not here) superior knowledge)
c) BGHSt 40, 341 drivers with seizure disorders (§ § 222 , 229, 315c of the Penal Code, consent to the risks, Negligence liability)
d, § § 20, 21StGB, the negligent tort success it needs no recourse to the figure of "actio libera in causa")
d) suns Note BGH JA 1987, 210ff "I wern verschloche" (ignored by emergency service call for help, § 340 of the Penal Code, neglect, hypothetical causality, § 15 of the Criminal Code, defining conditional intent - intentional negligence, § 222 StGB, predictability, § 323c of the Penal Code, the relevance of the risk of intent)
second Attachments: Mitsch, negligence and criminal system, JuS 2001, 105 ff
third Textbook: Krey, General Part Volume 2, Rnd. 527-557
4th Comment: Joecks, StGB comment § 15 Rnd. 53-80, § 222 Rnd. 1-26.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Karnataka Mysuru Mallige Blue Film
kitchen knife
On appeal by the defendant, the decision of the Regional Court of Frankenthal, 14 August 1985 repealed the findings.
The case is remanded for new trial and decision, including costs of the appeal, other than a competent Criminal Court of Assizes.
By law
reasons
a
The District Court has convicted the accused of attempted homicide to a custodial sentence of three years. The revision of the defendant is engaging with the complaint of infringement of substantive law on the abolition of the Court. 2
first The defendant met his father for about ten centimeters long kitchen knife in the left chest. He was aware that "such a stab in the heart and lung area could be fatal. Such possible consequences were him ... indifferent "(UA 6). After the fact, he cleaned the knife to remove tracks, and swept up the broken glass of the previously destroyed in the confrontation with his father Door Panel. The severely injured victims, he pressed to leave the police out of the game and "the whole as a misfortune" show. When that asked for the notification of an ambulance, he leafed through some time in the phone book, then said, "He could not find the number and handed him the phone." The victim dialed 110, said of an accident and asked for medical help "(WP 7), the result of the call - was made three
- successfully.
second The district court believes the accused is not a criminal trial of killing retired liberating. The trial of the accused to kill his father, had been terminated because he had just run a knife like. A causal chain, "which would be for non-completion have been at least partly responsible," he had not started. He did, namely, "to reach out to his father the phone, ... shall not have any other activities". The initiative for the rescue alone was considered by the victim. The defendants point was not about preventing the possible death, but only of "the injury as an accident ... show" (WP 9). 4
third It is not enough to deny the accused to the benefit of § 24 StGB . 5
a) The Trial Chamber set out below the previous case law of the Federal Court after the case groups of unfinished and finished alone to test the ideas of the offender shall be enclosed in Tatbeginn. In turning away from this case has the Supreme Court in BGHSt 31, 170 , 176 and in addition the Court's decision panel of 22 August 1985 - 4 St 326/85 (for publication in BGHSt) - adopted the position that, for the demarcation of the above groups of cases on the "withdrawal horizon" arrives after the end of the last execution of action. An attempt is therefore not yet complete when the perpetrator - as here - that runs from the beginning planned action, but only if, after the last execution of action, the factual circumstances, could lead to the successful entry, recognize or if the success of admission, in disregard the actual inadequacy of the act deems possible. The District Court has not explicitly stated whether the accused of life threat to his victim in the afterwards for the evaluation of the resignation relevant time, was recognized after the infliction of the stab wound. This is, however, the severity of the victim inflicted injury - the knife caused a 1.5 cm wide and 7 to 8 cm deep smooth cut that reached the lung tissue (UA 7) - close, so is that the district court held may result correctly completed the test for. Then could the accused, of which the trial judge also posed, impunity not attain the very fact that he refrained took to bring about the death by another stabbed. 6
b) The statements of the District Court is clear that it negates the conditions for a withdrawal of amnesty for two reasons. Once it is based that conclusion on the argument that the defendant had no causal chain in motion set, which would have been the cause for non-completion. Second, it directs its view on it, the defendant it was not about the rescue of the victim, but to go to avoid being exposed as a perpetrator. Both considerations do not readily adjust to deny the conditions of the amnesty resignation after § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB . 7
aa) The defendant has served his father on the phone. The causality of this act for the success of frustration would be to affirm any event, if the father would have been saved because, for example, if the victim because of his injury was not in a position without help of others to the phone to , Get out of it is then that he was out saving phone call. The accused in such circumstances could not be objected that he still had other emergency measures may be taken (BGH StV 1981, 396). The district court has not determined whether it was here Sun If the act of the accused are not the cause was for the rescue, this would imply the applicability of the § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB not ruled out. For in cases where the crime without the assistance of the offender does not succeed, this impunity according to § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB when he voluntarily and earnestly efforts to prevent its completion. Condition for the impunity of the offender, however, is that it is appropriate action for the successful prevention of effort ( BGHSt 31, 46 ). If he is on - as here - the victim to take the rescue measures (see BGH NJW 1985, 813 , 814; BGH, Judgement of 26 May 1983 - 4 St 271/83), he may not there the chance to decide whether this shall take appropriate measures ( BGH, Judgement of 22 August 1985 - 4 St 326/85 , intended for publication in BGHSt). Here the victim with notification of the ambulance, the first in the circumstances of the case ELIGIBILITY line taken action to save him. In these circumstances the accused would have his obligation to strive to prevent the success, it made enough when he was the arrival of the - which is likely - would ensure for first aid trained occupants of this car. Whether he has done this - and thus has created despite the lack of causality of his efforts, the conditions for an amnesty resignation - or whether he left his father before the arrival of the ambulance to his fate - which would exclude from discussing the case design of an amnesty resignation - can not be inferred from the findings. 8
bb) The consideration of the District Court, the defendant was not about the rescue of his victim, but just about gone to present his injury as an accident, is also seen for an amnesty does not preclude rescission. The intent of the accused, the fact disguise with the help of the victim of police to be close, not efforts to rescue the victim nor the seriousness and voluntariness of the resignation, if the plan after the presentation of the accused only if the survival of his father could succeed. Would be different if the telephone interview of the victim, the accused may be supported, only the concealment efforts to serve and have proven to accidentally from the perspective of the accused as a trigger for the rescue operation (see RGSt 63, 158, 159, 68, 381, 382; Eser Schönke / Schröder, StGB 21st edition § 24 para 59; Samson SK § 24 para 27; Vogler LK 10th Edition § 24 para 112). This has not determined the district court, however. 9
4th The conviction for attempted murder has therefore not stand. The Senate does not see himself in a position to change the guilty verdict and order the accused of grievous bodily harm, as not excluded that the newly decisive Criminal Division can still make findings that justify a conviction for attempted manslaughter. 
On appeal by the defendant, the decision of the Regional Court of Frankenthal, 14 August 1985 repealed the findings.
The case is remanded for new trial and decision, including costs of the appeal, other than a competent Criminal Court of Assizes.
By law
reasons
a
The District Court has convicted the accused of attempted homicide to a custodial sentence of three years. The revision of the defendant is engaging with the complaint of infringement of substantive law on the abolition of the Court. 2
first The defendant met his father for about ten centimeters long kitchen knife in the left chest. He was aware that "such a stab in the heart and lung area could be fatal. Such possible consequences were him ... indifferent "(UA 6). After the fact, he cleaned the knife to remove tracks, and swept up the broken glass of the previously destroyed in the confrontation with his father Door Panel. The severely injured victims, he pressed to leave the police out of the game and "the whole as a misfortune" show. When that asked for the notification of an ambulance, he leafed through some time in the phone book, then said, "He could not find the number and handed him the phone." The victim dialed 110, said of an accident and asked for medical help "(WP 7), the result of the call - was made three
- successfully.
second The district court believes the accused is not a criminal trial of killing retired liberating. The trial of the accused to kill his father, had been terminated because he had just run a knife like. A causal chain, "which would be for non-completion have been at least partly responsible," he had not started. He did, namely, "to reach out to his father the phone, ... shall not have any other activities". The initiative for the rescue alone was considered by the victim. The defendants point was not about preventing the possible death, but only of "the injury as an accident ... show" (WP 9). 4
third It is not enough to deny the accused to the benefit of § 24 StGB . 5
a) The Trial Chamber set out below the previous case law of the Federal Court after the case groups of unfinished and finished alone to test the ideas of the offender shall be enclosed in Tatbeginn. In turning away from this case has the Supreme Court in BGHSt 31, 170 , 176 and in addition the Court's decision panel of 22 August 1985 - 4 St 326/85 (for publication in BGHSt) - adopted the position that, for the demarcation of the above groups of cases on the "withdrawal horizon" arrives after the end of the last execution of action. An attempt is therefore not yet complete when the perpetrator - as here - that runs from the beginning planned action, but only if, after the last execution of action, the factual circumstances, could lead to the successful entry, recognize or if the success of admission, in disregard the actual inadequacy of the act deems possible. The District Court has not explicitly stated whether the accused of life threat to his victim in the afterwards for the evaluation of the resignation relevant time, was recognized after the infliction of the stab wound. This is, however, the severity of the victim inflicted injury - the knife caused a 1.5 cm wide and 7 to 8 cm deep smooth cut that reached the lung tissue (UA 7) - close, so is that the district court held may result correctly completed the test for. Then could the accused, of which the trial judge also posed, impunity not attain the very fact that he refrained took to bring about the death by another stabbed. 6
b) The statements of the District Court is clear that it negates the conditions for a withdrawal of amnesty for two reasons. Once it is based that conclusion on the argument that the defendant had no causal chain in motion set, which would have been the cause for non-completion. Second, it directs its view on it, the defendant it was not about the rescue of the victim, but to go to avoid being exposed as a perpetrator. Both considerations do not readily adjust to deny the conditions of the amnesty resignation after § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB . 7
aa) The defendant has served his father on the phone. The causality of this act for the success of frustration would be to affirm any event, if the father would have been saved because, for example, if the victim because of his injury was not in a position without help of others to the phone to , Get out of it is then that he was out saving phone call. The accused in such circumstances could not be objected that he still had other emergency measures may be taken (BGH StV 1981, 396). The district court has not determined whether it was here Sun If the act of the accused are not the cause was for the rescue, this would imply the applicability of the § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB not ruled out. For in cases where the crime without the assistance of the offender does not succeed, this impunity according to § 24 para 1 sentence 2 StGB when he voluntarily and earnestly efforts to prevent its completion. Condition for the impunity of the offender, however, is that it is appropriate action for the successful prevention of effort ( BGHSt 31, 46 ). If he is on - as here - the victim to take the rescue measures (see BGH NJW 1985, 813 , 814; BGH, Judgement of 26 May 1983 - 4 St 271/83), he may not there the chance to decide whether this shall take appropriate measures ( BGH, Judgement of 22 August 1985 - 4 St 326/85 , intended for publication in BGHSt). Here the victim with notification of the ambulance, the first in the circumstances of the case ELIGIBILITY line taken action to save him. In these circumstances the accused would have his obligation to strive to prevent the success, it made enough when he was the arrival of the - which is likely - would ensure for first aid trained occupants of this car. Whether he has done this - and thus has created despite the lack of causality of his efforts, the conditions for an amnesty resignation - or whether he left his father before the arrival of the ambulance to his fate - which would exclude from discussing the case design of an amnesty resignation - can not be inferred from the findings. 8
bb) The consideration of the District Court, the defendant was not about the rescue of his victim, but just about gone to present his injury as an accident, is also seen for an amnesty does not preclude rescission. The intent of the accused, the fact disguise with the help of the victim of police to be close, not efforts to rescue the victim nor the seriousness and voluntariness of the resignation, if the plan after the presentation of the accused only if the survival of his father could succeed. Would be different if the telephone interview of the victim, the accused may be supported, only the concealment efforts to serve and have proven to accidentally from the perspective of the accused as a trigger for the rescue operation (see RGSt 63, 158, 159, 68, 381, 382; Eser Schönke / Schröder, StGB 21st edition § 24 para 59; Samson SK § 24 para 27; Vogler LK 10th Edition § 24 para 112). This has not determined the district court, however. 9
4th The conviction for attempted murder has therefore not stand. The Senate does not see himself in a position to change the guilty verdict and order the accused of grievous bodily harm, as not excluded that the newly decisive Criminal Division can still make findings that justify a conviction for attempted manslaughter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)