Federal Supreme Court, 06.24.2026, 6B_910/2025, 6B_915/2025
Facts
On August 14, 2023, A.________ drove his vehicle while severely intoxicated, with an estimated blood alcohol level between 2.08 and 2.88 g/kg. On a road with a 60 km/h speed limit, he recklessly attempted to overtake three vehicles, reaching speeds between 80 and 133 km/h. After nearly losing control once, he struck a concrete curb with his front right wheel, permanently losing control of his vehicle. He then traveled approximately 73.5 meters, partially on the grassy verge, before striking the cyclist E.B.________ from behind, who was riding correctly in the bike lane. The victim died two days later from his injuries. (let. B.b)
At first instance, the Criminal Court convicted A.________ of murder (Art. 111 SCC) and sentenced him to six and a half years in prison, ordered his expulsion for 10 years, and ordered him to pay 50,000 francs to each of the victim's relatives for non-pecuniary damage. (let. A)
Upon appeal by A.________, the Cantonal Court of Justice amended the judgment. It reclassified the facts as negligent homicide (Art. 117 SCC), reduced the sentence to three years of imprisonment (with 18 months suspended), waived the expulsion, and reduced the compensation for non-pecuniary damage. Both the Public Prosecutor's Office and the victim's relatives (plaintiffs) filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the cantonal judgment and the reinstatement of the first-instance verdict, specifically the classification of murder by eventual intent. (let. B.a, C.a, C.b)
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the fundamental distinction between intentional murder (Art. 111 SCC) and negligent homicide (Art. 117 SCC). Intent, in the form of eventual intent (Art. 12 para. 2 SCC), is established when the perpetrator considers the occurrence of the harmful result possible and accepts it should it occur. Conversely, in cases of conscious negligence (Art. 12 para. 3 SCC), the perpetrator also foresees the risk but, through culpable carelessness, assumes the result will not occur. The distinction therefore rests on the volitional element (the will) of the perpetrator. (consid. 4.1)
In the absence of a confession, the perpetrator's intent must be inferred from external circumstances. The higher the probability of the risk materializing and the more significant the breach of the duty of care, the more justified the conclusion that the perpetrator accepted the possibility of the result. Determining what a person knew, intended, or accepted is a matter of fact, which binds the Federal Supreme Court unless it is arbitrary. Conversely, the legal classification of these facts (eventual intent or negligence) is a question of law that the Federal Supreme Court reviews freely. (consid. 4.2, 4.3)
The Federal Supreme Court reaffirms its consistent and restrictive case law regarding the admission of eventual intent in traffic accidents. Experience shows that drivers tend to underestimate dangers and overestimate their own abilities, often leading them to irrationally believe that no accident will occur. Consequently, the admission of eventual intent is reserved for flagrant cases where the overall circumstances clearly indicate that the driver knowingly acted against the protected legal interest. (consid. 4.4)
In practice, murder by eventual intent is only found in extreme situations, such as high-speed chases or "blind" overtaking, where a fatal outcome is purely a matter of chance because any reaction is impossible. Conversely, when an accident, despite resulting from highly dangerous driving, was not technically inevitable, the courts classify it as negligent homicide. In such cases, even a reckless driver is not presumed to have accepted the fatal outcome. (consid. 4.5)
Application to the case at hand
The Federal Supreme Court reviewed the reasoning of the Court of Justice, which had ruled out eventual intent. The cantonal authority acknowledged that the respondent had engaged in multiple "aberrant" behaviors: driving under the influence of alcohol, and performing a reckless and unjustified overtaking maneuver at excessive speed. However, it also considered subjective factors: the respondent's advanced state of intoxication, his professional preoccupations, and his overconfidence in his driving abilities—factors that make it unlikely he had contemplated and accepted a fatal outcome. (consid. 4.6)
Crucially, the Court of Justice noted, based on expert testimony, that the accident was not inevitable. Technically, it was possible for the respondent to avoid colliding with the traffic island despite his speed, and even after hitting the curb, he could still have braked or regained control of his vehicle to avoid hitting the cyclist. The fatal chain of events was therefore not an inevitability resulting solely from the overtaking maneuver. The accident was instead the result of a series of poor reactions, compounded by intoxication and the fact that the driver had not seen the victim. (consid. 4.6)
The Federal Supreme Court upholds this analysis. The present case involves dangerous driving and a reckless overtaking maneuver that led to a fatal accident, which, according to established case law, constitutes negligent homicide (Art. 117 of the Swiss Criminal Code). This is not a case of "blind" overtaking or a high-speed chase where the perpetrator knowingly accepted the death of a third party. Since the accident was not inevitable, it cannot be inferred that the respondent accepted the fatal outcome. (consid. 4.7)
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the appellants' arguments. The claim that the collision was "inevitable" is contradicted by the facts established by the lower court. Likewise, the criticism of the Federal Supreme Court's restrictive case law is dismissed, as it has been repeatedly confirmed. Although the maneuver created a serious risk of an accident (justifying a conviction for "reckless driving" underArt. 90 para. 3 of the Road Traffic Act), it did not necessarily imply the death of a cyclist who was not visible and was located several hundred meters away. (consid. 4.8.1, 4.8.2)
Consequently, the Court of Justice did not violate federal law by reclassifying the facts as negligent homicide. The appellants' conclusions regarding sentencing, expulsion, and moral damages, being based exclusively on the classification of murder, are rendered moot. (consid. 4.9, 5)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeals filed by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the private plaintiffs. The judgment of the Court of Justice is upheld. The conviction of A.________ for negligent homicide stands. (consid. 2, 6)