The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
BGH 2 StR 475/15•Conditional appointment of witness counsel under § 68b StPO
BGH 2 StR 475/15Bgh / Criminal Chamber IIDec 4, 2015Dismissed
Extracted by Omnilex
The accused's revision against the Aachen Regional Court judgment was dismissed as unfounded. The Federal Court of Justice held that appointing witness counsel only on condition that the witness would not exercise a right to refuse information was erroneous because § 68b(2) sentence 2 StPO is meant to enable advice on whether such refusal is permissible and advisable. However, this defect did not lead to an exclusion of evidence, since the witness's statements were not used to the accused's detriment. The accused had to bear the costs of the remedy.
§ 68b Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO; conditional appointment of witness counsel and evidentiary consequences. Witness counsel must be able to advise the witness also on the admissibility and advisability of invoking a right to refuse information. A condition excluding such advice is incompatible with the statutory purpose and is therefore erroneous. Such a procedural defect does not, however, automatically entail a prohibition on the use of evidence in the accused's favor; an exclusionary effect requires that the testimony be used to the accused's detriment. If no adverse use is made, the defect does not affect the conviction.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-12-04
Aktenzeichen: 2 StR 475/15
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2015:041215B2STR475.15.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 68b Abs 2 StPO
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Aachen, 23. Juni 2015, Az: 62 KLs 101 Js 7/13 - 1/13
Spruchkörper: 2. Strafsenat
Strafverfahren: Beiordnung eines Zeugenbeistands unter der Bedingung der Nichtgeltendmachung des Auskunftsverweigerungsrechts
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Aachen vom 23. Juni 2015 wird als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben hat.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Die Beiordnung eines Beistands für den Zeugen Y. nur unter der Bedingung, dass er sein Recht auf Auskunftsverweigerung nicht wahrnehme, war fehlerhaft. Der gemäß § 68b Abs. 2 Satz 2 StPO beigeordnete Beistand soll den Zeugen gerade auch darüber beraten, ob eine Auskunftsverweigerung zulässig und angezeigt ist. Aus der Art der Beiordnung des Zeugenbeistands folgt hier aber kein Beweisverwertungsverbot zugunsten des Angeklagten. Das Landgericht hat die Angaben des Zeugen nicht zu seinem Nachteil verwertet.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Fischer Krehl Eschelbach
Ott Zeng
Extracted by Omnilex
Whether the revision against the Regional Court judgment was well-founded.
The revision was unfounded; the judgment showed no legal error to the detriment of the accused.
The BGH found no reversible error on review of the grounds of appeal.
Whether appointing witness counsel only on condition that the witness not exercise a right to refuse information was lawful.
No; witness counsel under § 68b(2) sentence 2 StPO must also advise the witness on whether refusal to give information is permissible and advisable.
Such a conditional appointment contradicts the purpose of the appointed counsel.
Whether the defective appointment created an exclusionary rule against use of the witness's statements.
No exclusionary rule arose in favor of the accused because the Regional Court did not use the witness's statements to his detriment.
Although the appointment was flawed, the statements were not adversely exploited at trial.
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.