Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
21 04 219 • KG LU 21 04 219 AI generated

Kleptomania Diagnosis Reopening Shoplifting Conviction: Statute of Limitations and Criminal Record Date

Case Number 21 04 219
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Entscheidsuche mirror Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

A prior, final conviction for repeated shoplifting was subject to review because the convict was subsequently diagnosed with kleptomania by a specialist, which constitutes a ground for reopening the case, as this established pathological condition, unknown at the time of the initial rulings, was likely to lead to acquittal or a significantly milder sentence under the relevant criminal codes. The court ruled that upon reassessment, the key considerations are the statute of limitations for serving the sentence (Vollstreckungsverjährung) and, concerning the criminal record entry, the original date of the annulled judgments, not the date of the judgment in the reopened proceedings.

Legislator headnote

Official

§§ 255 ff. StPO; Art. 70 ff. und Art. 80 StGB.. Eine bei einem mehrfach wegen Ladendiebstahls rechtskräftig Verurteilten nachträglich fachärztlich diagnostizierte Kleptomanie ist ein Revisionsgrund, der zur Aufhebung der früheren Urteile führt. Bei der Neubeurteilung ist nicht die Verfolgungsverjährung, sondern die Vollstreckungsverjährung und für die Löschung des Strafregistereintrags der Zeitpunkt der aufgehobenen Urteile und nicht derjenige des Urteils im wieder aufgenommenen Verfahren massgebend. | Strafprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
statute of limitations criminal sentence reopening of proceedings related theft offenses revision of a judgment risk of reoffending

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 80 StGB
Art. 397 StGB
Art. 10 StGB
Cited as a potential outcome (acquittal due to lack of criminal responsibility) resulting from the reopened proceedings.
Art. 11 StGB
Cited as a potential outcome (milder sentence) resulting from the reopened proceedings.
§ 255 Ziff. 1 StPO
This provision was the legal basis cited for granting the revision and ordering the reopening of the criminal proceedings.
§ 260bis Abs. 2 StPO
Cited to determine which authority (the District Magistrate's Office) will handle the resumed trial.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
BGE 99 IV 183
BGE 116 IV 353
Drug Convict Revision Based on Withdrawn Testimony and New Evidence Assessment
BGE 107 Ia 102
Revision of criminal judgment: nature of reopening as permissive procedure and scope of right to be heard on produced files
BGE 114 IV 138
Conviction Reopening, Statute of Limitations, and Presumption of Innocence
AI generated
21 08 172
Conviction Upheld; Forensic Measure Denied Due to Timing of Abnormal Mental State
2N 14 127
Statute of Limitations Tolling Upon First-Instance Conviction Despite Subsequent Reversal and Remand
21 05 40
Appellant's Intent in Organized Robbery and Theft
21 02 166
Expungement of Suspended Sentence Following Subsequent Offense
21 06 190
Retroactive Application of Milder Criminal Code Provisions in Sentencing

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 255 Ziff. 1 StPO

This provision was the legal basis cited for granting the revision and ordering the reopening of the criminal proceedings.

Art. 10 StGB

Cited as a potential outcome (acquittal due to lack of criminal responsibility) resulting from the reopened proceedings.

Art. 11 StGB

Cited as a potential outcome (milder sentence) resulting from the reopened proceedings.

§ 260bis Abs. 2 StPO

Cited to determine which authority (the District Magistrate's Office) will handle the resumed trial.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Rechtsprechung Luzern

Instanz: · Obergericht

Abteilung: · II. Kammer

Rechtsgebiet: · Strafprozessrecht

Entscheiddatum: · 26.01.2005

Fallnummer: · 21 04 219

LGVE: · 2005 I Nr. 67

Leitsatz: · §§ 255 ff. StPO; Art. 70 ff. und Art. 80 StGB.. Eine bei einem mehrfach wegen Ladendiebstahls rechtskräftig Verurteilten nachträglich fachärztlich diagnostizierte Kleptomanie ist ein Revisionsgrund, der zur Aufhebung der früheren Urteile führt. Bei der Neubeurteilung ist nicht die Verfolgungsverjährung, sondern die Vollstreckungsverjährung und für die Löschung des Strafregistereintrags der Zeitpunkt der aufgehobenen Urteile und nicht derjenige des Urteils im wieder aufgenommenen Verfahren massgebend.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.