Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 27.05.2026, 6B_1002/2024
Facts
A German national, A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant), was found guilty by the Kreuzlingen District Court of multiple counts of false imprisonment, multiple counts of bodily harm, multiple counts of defamation, threats, property damage, multiple counts of animal cruelty, and multiple counts of illegal possession of weapons. He was sentenced to a 39-month custodial sentence and a suspended monetary penalty of 45 daily rates, as well as a five-year expulsion order. (A)
Following an appeal by the appellant and a cross-appeal by the victim, B.________ (hereinafter: the respondent), the High Court of the Canton of Thurgau upheld most of the charges. It sentenced the appellant to a 39-month custodial sentence and a suspended monetary penalty of 20 daily rates, while noting a violation of the principle of due speed, which led to an eight-month reduction in the sentence. The five-year expulsion order was upheld. (B)
The appellant has filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. He primarily requests that the judgment be set aside and the case remanded to the lower court with instructions to order a psychiatric evaluation of the respondent. Alternatively, he seeks a partial acquittal regarding one count of false imprisonment and most of the animal cruelty charges. He also requests that the weapons offenses be sanctioned with a monetary penalty and that his total sentence be reduced to a 24-month suspended custodial sentence and a firm monetary penalty. ©
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates that its review of the facts is limited to cases of arbitrariness. A finding of fact is arbitrary if it is manifestly unsustainable, in flagrant contradiction with the actual situation, or based on a manifest error. A claim of arbitrariness must be substantiated in detail. The principle of *in dubio pro reo*, as a rule for the assessment of evidence, has no scope independent of the prohibition of arbitrariness (Art. 9 of the Constitution). (consid. 1.3.1)
The right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution ; Art. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is not violated when an authority declines to admit evidence based on an anticipatory assessment of evidence, provided it concludes without arbitrariness that such evidence would not alter its conviction. The refusal to order an expert opinion on the credibility of a witness falls under the assessment of facts and is reviewed only for arbitrariness. (consid. 1.3.2)
UnderArt. 164 para. 2 CrimPC, an outpatient psychiatric evaluation of a witness may be ordered if there are doubts regarding their capacity for discernment or indications of mental health issues.Art. 182 CrimPC allows for the use of an expert when the court lacks the necessary expertise. However, assessing the credibility of statements is primarily the responsibility of the judge. Resorting to a credibility assessment is only necessary under specific circumstances, such as when there are serious indications of mental health issues that could affect the witness's sincerity. The judge has broad discretion in this regard. (consid. 1.4.1, 1.4.2)
The offense of unlawful imprisonment (Art. 183 no. 1 para. 1 SCC) is committed when someone is unlawfully arrested, detained, or otherwise deprived of their freedom of movement. The act is unlawful in the absence of justification, such as the victim's consent. The offense is intentional, with conditional intent being sufficient. Findings regarding intent are matters of fact and are reviewed by the Federal Supreme Court only for arbitrariness. (consid. 2.2.1, 2.2.2)
In determining the sentence, the judge has broad discretion. The Federal Supreme Court only intervenes in cases of abuse or excess of this discretion. The choice between a monetary penalty and a custodial sentence is based on the offender's culpability (Art. 47 SCC), with the monetary penalty being the more lenient sanction. In cases of concurrent offenses (Art. 49 SCC), the judge determines a consolidated sentence based on the principle of aggravation. A global custodial sentence may be imposed even for offenses normally punishable by a monetary penalty, particularly in cases of repeat offending, a close link between the offenses, or if previous monetary penalties have proven ineffective for special prevention purposes. (consid. 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4)
Application to the case at hand
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the complaint regarding the refusal to order a psychiatric evaluation of the respondent. The lower court determined, without arbitrariness, that there were insufficient indications of a personality disorder (such as borderline personality disorder) in the respondent. Her internet searches on psychological topics are inconclusive and can be explained by a general interest. Furthermore, her statements were found to be consistent, coherent, and corroborated by objective evidence, including a video recording of one of the incidents. The lower court's anticipatory assessment of evidence, by which it deemed an expert opinion unnecessary, is therefore not arbitrary. (consid. 1.5.1, 1.5.2)
Regarding the conviction for false imprisonment on October 21, 2018, the Federal Supreme Court upholds the lower court's analysis. Based on the respondent's credible testimony and police reports, the lower court found that the appellant had locked her in the apartment and that she was unable to free herself. Given the respondent's state of dependency and fear, the lower court did not act arbitrarily in finding that no valid consent existed. It also correctly determined that the appellant acted intentionally to prevent her from leaving. The appellant's arguments are merely an attempt to re-litigate the facts. (consid. 2.1, 2.3)
The Federal Supreme Court also dismisses the complaints regarding acts of cruelty to animals. The appellant does not contest one of the incidents (holding a dog underwater), which makes his challenges to the respondent's credibility on this matter contradictory. Otherwise, the lower court conducted a detailed and non-arbitrary assessment of the evidence, relying on the respondent's credible statements, and concluded that neither the veterinary report nor the appellant's statements were sufficient to refute them. The conviction is therefore upheld. (consid. 3.1, 3.2)
Finally, the sentencing is deemed to be in accordance with the law. The lower court correctly chose a custodial sentence for the violations of the Weapons Act, based on the need for special prevention, as the appellant had not been deterred by previous firm monetary penalties imposed in Germany. Taking into account the excessive violence during the false imprisonment as an aggravating factor is justified, as it exceeded what was necessary to commit the offense. The sentences set for each offense and the overall sentence result from a correct weighing of all relevant factors and do not exceed the judge's discretionary power. (consid. 4.3, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.5)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The court costs, amounting to 3,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellant. (consid. 1, 2, 5)