Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
21 05 48 • KG LU 21 05 48 Generato dall'IA

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

Numero d'incarto 21 05 48
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Svizzera · Canton Lucerna (CH-LU)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

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.

Regesto Legislator

Ufficiale

§§ 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

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
diritto di soggiorno diritto di non autoincriminarsi diritti procedurali diritto alla propria parola motivazione obbligo di testimoniare

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA

Giurisprudenza citata

Generato dall'IA
Generato dall'IA

Questioni giuridiche chiave estratte da Legislator

Generato dall'IA
§ 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.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

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.