Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 30.07.2026, 6B_74/2026
Facts
Following an altercation in an underground parking garage, A.________ pulled out a switchblade with an 8.4 cm blade. He struck out in the direction of B., who was hit in the forearm while shielding his upper body. A. then pursued B., who was attempting to flee. Shortly thereafter, he stabbed D. in the chest near the heart, piercing the right ventricle and causing his death. (consid. 2 and 4)
A.________ was convicted of murder and attempted murder, among other charges. The cantonal court sentenced him to 16 years of imprisonment and upheld his internment as well as outpatient treatment. Before the Federal Supreme Court, he challenged the attempted murder conviction, invoked self-defense, and contested both his internment and the refusal to order a supplementary psychiatric evaluation. (consid. 1 to 5)
Law
Regarding the assessment of evidence, the Federal Supreme Court only intervenes in cases of arbitrariness. In this context, the presumption of innocence and the principle of *in dubio pro reo* do not have a broader scope than the prohibition of arbitrariness. The appellant must therefore demonstrate that the cantonal assessment is manifestly unsustainable and cannot simply offer his own version of the facts. (consid. 2.1)
Self-defense within the meaning ofArt. 15 SCC requires an unlawful attack that is current or imminent, and a proportionate response. A person who intentionally provokes an attack in order to then defend themselves may forfeit the benefit of this justification. In the event of excessive defense, Art. 16 SCC allows for a reduction of the sentence, or even an exemption from culpability if the excess resulted from an excusable state of agitation or distress. (consid. 4.1)
Finally, internment within the meaning ofArt. 64 SCC constitutes a particularly severe measure that requires, among other things, a qualified risk of recidivism. The judge must base their decision on an expert report that is sufficiently clear regarding the perpetrator's mental state, the risk of reoffending, and the possibilities for treatment. Internment must remain a measure of last resort. (consid. 5.1)
Application to the present case
Regarding the attempted murder of B., the Federal Supreme Court upheld the cantonal court's assessment. The knife blow was aimed at the upper body, and only B.'s defensive arm position prevented vital organs from being struck. By using such a weapon against an unarmed person, A.________ must have foreseen and accepted the risk of causing death. His conviction for attempted murder was therefore not arbitrary. (consid. 2.2-2.3)
Conversely, regarding self-defense, the cantonal court's reasoning was insufficient. It had asserted both that A.________ had "provoked" the group and that he himself had been the "aggressor," without clearly explaining which of these two situations it was relying on. It also failed to sufficiently establish the exact sequence of events leading up to the first punch received by A.________. The Federal Supreme Court was therefore unable to properly review the application of Articles 15 and 16 of the Swiss Criminal Code. (consid. 4.4.2)
The Federal Supreme Court also noted a contradiction regarding the internment. The cantonal court held that there was no serious mental disorder while simultaneously ordering outpatient treatment based onArticle 63 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which specifically presupposes the existence of a serious mental disorder. The 2021 psychiatric evaluation itself was ambiguous regarding the classification and severity of the appellant's antisocial personality disorder. A supplementary expert report was therefore necessary to clarify the diagnosis, its link to the offenses, and to update the risk of recidivism. (consid. 5.3.2-5.3.3)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court partially grants the appeal, sets aside the cantonal judgment, and remands the case to the Geneva Court of Justice. The latter must supplement the facts and its reasoning regarding self-defense and order a supplementary psychiatric evaluation before ruling again on the internment. For the remainder, particularly regarding the conviction for attempted murder, the appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible. (consid. 6)