BGH 4 StR 263/14•Criminal appeal: requirements for an evidentiary complaint on omitted witness examination
BGH 4 StR 263/14Bgh / Criminal Chamber 430 lug 2014Dismissed
Estratto da Omnilex
The Federal Court dismissed the defendant's revision against the LG Magdeburg judgment. It held that review of the judgment disclosed no legal error adverse to the defendant. The separately raised evidentiary complaint concerning the failure to hear three witnesses was already inadmissible because the revision submissions did not identify the witnesses' serviceable addresses, as required by § 344(2) sentence 2 StPO. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the remedy and the private prosecutor's necessary expenses.
§ 344 Abs. 2 S. 2 StPO; requirements of an Aufklärungsrüge based on omitted witness examination: a revision complaining of a failure to hear witnesses is inadmissible unless the grounds of appeal state all facts necessary to review the alleged procedural defect, in particular the witnesses' serviceable addresses. A mere assertion that named witnesses should have been examined is insufficient. If no other legal error appears on review, the revision is to be dismissed as unfounded under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2014-07-30
Aktenzeichen: 4 StR 263/14
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 344 Abs 2 S 2 StPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Magdeburg, 14. Februar 2014, Az: 25 KLs 253 Js 27665/13 (56/13)
Spruchkörper: 4. Strafsenat
Revision in Strafsachen: Anforderungen an die Aufklärungsrüge wegen unterbliebener Zeugenvernehmung
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Magdeburg vom 14. Februar 2014 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat (§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO).
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels und die dem Nebenkläger im Revisionsverfahren entstandenen notwendigen Auslagen zu tragen.
Ergänzend zum Antrag des Generalbundesanwalts bemerkt der Senat:
Die Aufklärungsrüge, mit der die unterbliebene Vernehmung von drei Zeugen beanstandet wird, ist bereits deshalb nicht zulässig erhoben (§ 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO), weil die ladungsfähigen Anschriften der Zeugen nicht mitgeteilt werden (vgl. BGH, Urteil vom 21. November 2013 - 4 StR 242/13 mwN, insoweit in NStZ 2014, 172 nicht abgedruckt).
Sost-Scheible Roggenbuck Mutzbauer
Bender Quentin
Estratto da Omnilex
Whether the defendant's revision against the LG Magdeburg judgment had merit.
The revision was unfounded; review of the judgment on the basis of the statement of grounds disclosed no legal error adverse to the defendant.
The Senate found no reversible error in the challenged judgment.
Whether the evidentiary complaint (Aufklärungsrüge) regarding the failure to hear three witnesses was properly raised.
The complaint was inadmissibly raised because the revisional submissions did not state the witnesses' serviceable addresses.
Under § 344 Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO, a proper evidentiary complaint must set out the facts necessary to assess the asserted procedural violation; without serviceable addresses of the witnesses, the allegation was insufficient.
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.