Federal Supreme Court, 02.09.2026, 6B_135/2026
Facts
A.________ and B.________ are married but have been living apart since 2022 (fact B.a).
A dispute broke out between them, during which A.________ threatened B.________ with a knife.
The incident was filmed by B.________ without her husband's knowledge.
The video shows A.________ approaching B.________, grabbing her by the neck, pointing a knife at her face while saying, "the next time you pick up a knife, I will cut your head off," and then cutting off a lock of her hair with the knife (fact B.b).
Based on this video, A.________ was found guilty of aggravated threats (Art. 180 para. 2 let. a SCC) by the Geneva Police Court, and subsequently by the Criminal Appeals and Review Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice (facts A and B).
A.________ (hereinafter: the appellant) has filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
He primarily contests the admissibility of the video as evidence and the fulfillment of the constituent elements of the offense of threats (fact C).
Law
Evidence obtained through a criminal offense (in this case, an unauthorized recording, Art. 179quater SCC) or otherwise unlawfully by a private individual is only admissible if two cumulative conditions are met (Art. 141 para. 2 CrimPC by analogy):
- The evidence could have been obtained lawfully by the criminal prosecution authorities.
- A weighing of interests, which takes into account the severity of the offense to be clarified, favors its admission (consid. 1.3).
The concept of a serious offense within the meaning of Art. 141 para. 2 of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC) is not determined abstractly based on the potential penalty, but rather according to the gravity of the specific act and the overall circumstances (nature of the protected legal interest, modus operandi, criminal intent, etc.) (consid. 1.5.2).
The offense of making threats (Art. 180 of the Swiss Criminal Code) is committed when the perpetrator alarms or frightens a person through a serious threat.
The threat must be objectively capable of frightening a reasonable person, and the victim must have been subjectively frightened.
Whether the victim was actually frightened is a question of fact, which is binding on the Federal Supreme Court unless it is found to be arbitrary (consid. 2.1).
Application to the specific case
The appellant challenges the admissibility of the video evidence, arguing that the offense of making threats does not constitute a "serious offense" within the meaning of Art. 141 para. 2 CrimPC (consid. 1.5.2).
The Federal Supreme Court rejects this claim.
The cantonal court correctly assessed the gravity of the act not in the abstract, but in light of the specific circumstances.
It rightly emphasized the context of domestic violence, the fact that the acts took place behind closed doors, the victim's vulnerability, and the particularly alarming modus operandi (grabbing the victim by the throat, brandishing a knife, and cutting off a lock of her hair to demonstrate the capacity to carry out the threat).
Under these conditions, the cantonal court was justified in classifying the facts as a serious offense and admitting the video evidence, which was, moreover, essential for establishing the facts (consid. 1.5.2).
The appellant further disputes that his behavior caused a state of fear in the victim.
He claims that the scene was "staged" and "provoked" by the respondent (consid. 2.5).
The Federal Supreme Court deems this argument purely appellate in nature and therefore inadmissible.
The appellant merely contrasts his own interpretation of the video with that of the cantonal court, which is by no means unsustainable.
The victim's sobbing and her reflex to flee, visible in the video, are clear indicators of her state of fear.
The hypothesis of a "staged" event is rightly dismissed by the cantonal court, which noted that even in the event of provocation, the appellant's reaction was completely disproportionate and threatening (consid. 2.3 and 2.5).
Likewise, the challenge regarding the intent to frighten is deemed appellate and inadmissible.
The appellant merely asserts that they acted in "self-defense," without challenging the assessment made by the cantonal judges (recital 2.6).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible.
The appellant's conviction for aggravated threats is upheld.