Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
3 StR 247/23 ECLI:DE:BGH:2023:080823B3STR247.23.0 KI-generiert

Admissibility of word-against-word evidence and applicability of successive co-perpetration without prior joint plan

Geschäftsnummer 3 StR 247/23
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Kostenauflage zulasten Beschwerdeführer/in
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Court of Justice (3rd Criminal Senate) dismissed the defendant's appeal against the Landgericht Osnabrück's judgment, upholding the lower court's decision and ordering the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. The dispute centered on criminal liability where the defendant argued that the conviction relied on an impermissible "word against word" evidentiary situation and failed to establish a common premeditated plan necessary for the charged form of complicity. The Senate held that the appeal was unfounded because the defendant had admitted to the objective course of events, allowing the lower court to draw permissible inferences regarding the subjective elements of the offense, and clarified that successive co-perpetration was a viable legal alternative independent of a prior joint plan. The decision relied on § 349 Abs. 2 StPO for the standard of review, rejecting the argument that the lack of a prior plan or the co-defendant's limited confession invalidated the finding of guilt.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO; Admissibility of word-against-word evidence and applicability of successive co-perpetration without prior joint plan: The dispute centered on criminal liability where the defendant argued that the conviction relied on an impermissible "word against word" evidentiary situation and failed to establish a common premeditated plan necessary for the charged form of complicity. The Senate held that the appeal was unfounded because the defendant had admitted to the objective course of events, allowing the lower court to draw permissible inferences regarding the subjective elements of the offense, and clarified that successive co-perpetration was a viable legal alternative independent of a prior joint plan. The decision relied on § 349 Abs. 2 StPO for the standard of review, rejecting the argument that the lack of a prior plan or the co-defendant's limited confession invalidated the finding of guilt.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Beweisverfügungen objektive Beweise strafbare Handlung Verfahrensablauf E-Justice Justizirrtum

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO
Cited as the basis for dismissing the appeal as unfounded because the review based on the grounds of appeal revealed no legal error to the detriment of the defendant.
KI-generiert
5 StR 454/17
Admissibility of co-accused statements as evidence in criminal trial and impact on aggregate sentencing
2 StR 494/19
Sufficiency of evidentiary reasoning when sole incriminating evidence is contested victim testimony and witness corroboration
4 StR 168/23
Evidentiary admissibility of co-defendant’s written confession via prosecutor testimony when statutory reading requirements are breached
3 StR 341/21
Conviction based on prior statements of a non-testifying co-participant asserting right to refuse testimony: evidentiary standards and ECHR confrontation rights
3 ARs 20/14
Admissibility of prior judicial testimony when witness invokes right to refuse: requirement for qualified warning on use of earlier statements

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 349 Abs. 2 StPO

Cited as the basis for dismissing the appeal as unfounded because the review based on the grounds of appeal revealed no legal error to the detriment of the defendant.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Osnabrück vom 20. Februar 2023 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 zu tragen.

Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:

Eine Aussage-gegen-Aussage-Konstellation ist unabhängig von dem in der Gegenerklärung vom 7. August 2023 hervorgehobenen Umstand nicht gegeben, dass sich der Mitangeklagte lediglich zu seinem eigenen Tatbeitrag geständig eingelassen hat. Der Angeklagte hat das unter II. 1. der Urteilsgründe festgestellte objektive Tatgeschehen selbst eingeräumt, und das Landgericht hat zu den subjektiven Tatbestandsmerkmalen mögliche Schlüsse aufgrund verschiedener Umstände gezogen. Vor diesem Hintergrund bedarf es keiner weiteren Ausführung, dass ohne einen vorangegangenen gemeinsamen Tatplan eine sukzessive Mittäterschaft in Betracht käme.

Schäfer

Hohoff

Anstötz

Kreicker

Voigt