Federal Supreme Court, 07.29.2026, 6B_772/2025
Facts
On February 27, 2023, A.________ drove at 74 km/h in a 30 km/h zone after the safety margin was deducted, exceeding the speed limit by 44 km/h. He was consequently found guilty of a qualified serious violation of traffic regulations underArt. 90 para. 3 and 4 RTA. On appeal, he was sentenced to a twelve-month suspended prison term with a two-year probationary period. (consid. 1-3)
The appellant challenged, among other things, the reliability of the radar measurement. He requested that his passenger and the police officers responsible for the radar be heard, and that additional documents and an expert opinion be produced. He also argued that he should benefit from the privileged regime of Art. 90 para. 3ter RTA, despite a previous 2016 conviction for a serious violation of traffic regulations under Art. 90 para. 2 RTA. (consid. 1.1-1.2; 2.1)
Law
Criminal authorities may decline to admit additional evidence when they consider, based on evidence already gathered, that the relevant facts are sufficiently established and that further evidence would not alter their conviction. This anticipatory assessment of evidence does not violate the right to be heard or the principle of investigation, provided it is not arbitrary. On appeal, however, the authority must supplement the administration of evidence if the evidence already gathered is irregular, incomplete, or unreliable. (consid. 1.3-1.4)
Under Art. 90 para. 3 RTA, anyone who intentionally violates fundamental traffic rules and creates a high risk of a serious accident is subject to a prison sentence of one to four years. Exceeding the speed limit by at least 40 km/h in a 30 km/h zone constitutes a particularly serious violation. However, Art. 90 para. 3ter RTA allows for a sentence below this minimum, or even a monetary penalty, if the offender has not been convicted within the previous ten years of a traffic crime or misdemeanor that seriously endangered the safety of others. (consid. 2.3-2.4.2)
The Federal Supreme Court clarifies that any conviction based on Art. 90 para. 2 RTA within the previous ten years generally excludes the privilege of Art. 90 para. 3ter RTA. The legal text, preparatory works, and the purpose of the provision are consistent: an offender already convicted of a serious violation that created a serious danger to others cannot be considered a first-time offender eligible for the privileged sentencing framework. (consid. 2.5.1-2.5.6)
Application to the case
The lower court was entitled to decline to hear the passenger and the police officers. The radar measurement was corroborated by the measurement log, the calibration certificate, and functional checks. No concrete evidence suggested a radar malfunction. The fact that the appellant claimed to have seen 69 km/h on his speedometer after the flash was insufficient to call the objective measurement into question. The refusal to admit additional evidence was therefore not arbitrary. (consid. 1.4.1-1.4.2)
Furthermore, his 2016 conviction under Art. 90 para. 2 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA) occurred less than ten years ago. Art. 90 para. 3ter RTA was therefore inapplicable, meaning the minimum penalty provided for by Art. 90 para. 3 RTA remained in effect. (consid. 2.4-2.6)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible and upholds the conviction as well as the twelve-month suspended custodial sentence. The court costs of 3,000 francs are to be borne by the appellant. (consid. 3)