BGH 1 StR 699/10•Conditional challenge of expert is inadmissible
BGH 1 StR 699/10Bgh / Câmara Penal I3 de mai. de 2011Dismissed
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Court dismissed the defendant’s revision against the Munich II judgment as unfounded under § 349(2) StPO. It found no legal error to the defendant’s detriment. In an additional remark, the court clarified that a motion to challenge an expert for bias is generally not admissible subject to a condition. The defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the remedy and the private complainant’s necessary expenses in the revision proceedings.
§ 74 StPO; challenge of an expert for bias; conditional motions are inadmissible as a rule. A motion to disqualify an expert on grounds of bias must be made unconditionally; a condition attached to the request is incompatible with the nature of such a procedural motion. On revision, the Supreme Court may also note in obiter that the challenged motion lacks admissibility in principle, without affecting the dismissal of the revision under § 349 Abs. 2 StPO when no legal error adverse to the defendant is found.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2011-05-03
Aktenzeichen: 1 StR 699/10
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 74 StPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG München II, 11. August 2010, Az: 5 KLs 32 Js 7595/10, Urteil
Spruchkörper: 1. Strafsenat
Sachverständigenablehnung im Strafverfahren: Bedingungsfeindlichkeit eines Befangenheitsantrags
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts München II vom 11. August 2010 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 der Nebenklägerin im Revisionsverfahren entstandenen notwendigen Auslagen zu tragen.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat, dass ein Antrag auf Ablehnung eines Sachverständigen wegen Besorgnis der Befangenheit generell bedingungsfeindlich ist (so auch Senge in KK, 6. Aufl., § 74 Rn. 9 mwN).
Nack Wahl Hebenstreit
Graf Sander
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the defendant's revision against the Munich II judgment should be granted
The revision was unfounded and had to be dismissed.
The review of the judgment on the basis of the statement of grounds for revision disclosed no legal error adverse to the defendant.
Whether an expert may be challenged for bias only conditionally
A challenge of an expert for fear of bias is generally not subject to a condition.
The Senate stated in an additional remark that such an application is generally conditionality-resistant (bedingungsfeindlich).
Who bears the costs of the revision proceedings
The defendant bears the costs of the remedy and the necessary expenses of the private complainant incurred in the revision proceedings.
Consequent upon dismissal of the revision, the costs and necessary outlays were imposed on the appellant.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.