projects

Criminal bias motion: late rejection ground may be replaced on appeal

BGH 2 StR 631/12Bgh / Criminal Chamber IIJul 2, 2013Dismissed

Open source

Extracted by Omnilex

Omnilex summary

The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the accused’s revision against the Darmstadt Regional Court judgment. It held that the trial court’s rejection of the bias motion as late might be doubtful in a trial continued without the accused, but the outcome was nonetheless correct because the motion lacked any indication of a means to substantiate the alleged facts. The court may replace the inadmissibility ground within § 26a StPO on revision. The accused was ordered to bear the costs of the remedy.

Omnilex headnote

§ 26a StPO; substitution of inadmissibility grounds on revision; a rejection of a bias motion as inadmissible may be upheld if another ground under § 26a StPO is present. The appellate court is not barred from replacing the trial court’s stated inadmissibility ground within the statutory framework, provided the motion is in fact inadmissible for the substituted reason. In particular, failure to indicate a means of making the asserted facts credible constitutes an independent ground for rejection under § 26a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StPO in conjunction with § 26 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StPO (consid. 1). A revision is dismissed as unfounded where no reversible error adverse to the accused is found.

Full text

BGH — 2 StR 631/12, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2013-07-02

Aktenzeichen: 2 StR 631/12

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 25 Abs 2 StPO, § 26 Abs 2 S 1 StPO, § 26a Abs 1 Nr 1 StPO, § 26a Abs 1 Nr 2 StPO, § 231 Abs 2 StPO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Darmstadt, 27. Juli 2012, Az: 470 Js 27666/09 - 12 KLs, Urteil

Spruchkörper: 2. Strafsenat

Titelzeile

Richterablehnung im Strafverfahren: Verwerfung wegen Verspätung; Austausch des Verwerfungsgrundes durch das Revisionsgericht

Tenor

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Darmstadt vom 27. Juli 2012 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat.

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Die Ablehnung des Befangenheitsgesuchs als unzulässig gemäß § 26a StPO hält im Ergebnis rechtlicher Nachprüfung stand. Der Senat hat allerdings Bedenken, im Falle der Fortsetzung der Verhandlung ohne den Angeklagten (§ 231 Abs. 2 StPO) die Verwerfung eines nach den Plädoyers von Staatsanwaltschaft und Verteidigung gestellten Befangenheitsantrags - wie das Landgericht - wegen Verspätung auf § 26a Abs. 1 Nr. 1 StPO i.V.m. § 25 Abs. 2 StPO zu stützen.

Jedenfalls ist vorliegend aber der Verwerfungsgrund des § 26a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StPO i.V.m. § 26 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StPO gegeben, da in dem Befangenheitsgesuch ein Mittel zur Glaubhaftmachung nicht angegeben ist. Der Senat ist nicht gehindert, den Verwerfungsgrund innerhalb des § 26a StPO auszutauschen (BGH NStZ 2006, 644; vgl. auch BVerfG NStZ-RR 2006, 379).

Fischer Appl Schmitt

Eschelbach Ott

Keywords

criminal procedurebias motioninadmissibilitylatenesscredibility substantiationrevisioncosts

Extracted by Omnilex

Key legal questions extracted by Omnilex

Key legal question

Whether the rejection of the bias motion under § 26a StPO was legally sustainable.

Extracted holding

Yes. Even if the trial court's lateness-based ground was questionable, the motion was inadmissible because it did not state any means of making the alleged facts credible under § 26a Abs. 1 Nr. 2 StPO in conjunction with § 26 Abs. 2 Satz 1 StPO.

Extracted reasoning

The court held that it may substitute a different inadmissibility ground within § 26a StPO on revision. The omission of a credibility basis is an independent ground for rejection.

Key legal question

Whether the revision against the Landgericht judgment had merit overall.

Extracted holding

No. Review of the judgment on the basis of the grounds of appeal revealed no legal error adverse to the accused.

Extracted reasoning

The appellate court found no reversible error and therefore rejected the revision as unfounded.

Key legal question

Costs of the revision

Extracted holding

The accused must bear the costs of the appeal.

Extracted reasoning

Costs follow from dismissal of the revision.

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.