Legislator Case Law & Legislation
21 05 48 • KG LU 21 05 48 AI generated

Improper Truth Admonition and Right Against Self-Incrimination in Residence Case

Case Number 21 05 48
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Switzerland · Canton of Lucerne (CH-LU)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court reviewed a decision concerning an individual convicted of unlawful residence who argued that the trial court erred by admonishing them to tell the truth before their questioning, thereby violating their right to refuse to testify. The court held that while the accused was properly informed of their right to remain silent during the initial investigation, admonishing an accused to tell the truth during trial questioning violates the right against self-incrimination, which generally creates a prohibition on using those resulting statements as evidence. However, the court reasoned that this prohibition is not absolute and such statements can be admitted exceptionally if the person knew their rights, if serious crimes are involved, or upon balancing interests; ultimately, because sufficient other usable evidence existed, the improper admonishment did not constitute a procedural defect warranting remand.

Legislator headnote

Official

§§ 76 Abs. 3 und 173 Abs. 3 StPO. Den Angeklagten vor seiner Befragung an der Gerichtsverhandlung zur Wahrheit zu ermahnen, verletzt sein Aussageverweigerungsrecht. Mit einem solchen Mangel behaftete Aussagen dürfen nur ausnahmsweise als Beweise verwertet werden. | Strafprozessrecht

Keywords

AI generated
right of residence privilege against self-incrimination procedural rights right to one's own word statement of reasons obligation to testify

Cited Legislation

AI generated

Cited Case Law

AI generated
AI generated

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 241 Abs. 2 StPO

Cited because the court determined that the procedural flaw (improper admonition to truth) did not constitute a ground for remanding the case to the lower court based on this provision.

§ 173 Abs. 3 StPO

Cited in the reasoning leading up to the decision, concerning the duty to question the accused regarding person and subject matter at the hearing.

§ 76 Abs. 3 StPO

Cited in the reasoning, establishing the rule that the accused must be informed of the right to remain silent at the start of the first interrogation.

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: · 30.08.2005

Fallnummer: · 21 05 48

LGVE: · 2006 I Nr. 64

Leitsatz: · §§ 76 Abs. 3 und 173 Abs. 3 StPO. Den Angeklagten vor seiner Befragung an der Gerichtsverhandlung zur Wahrheit zu ermahnen, verletzt sein Aussageverweigerungsrecht. Mit einem solchen Mangel behaftete Aussagen dürfen nur ausnahmsweise als Beweise verwertet werden.

Rechtskraft: · Diese Entscheidung ist rechtskräftig.