BGH 2 StR 275/15•Murder in conjunction with abortion by causing death
BGH 2 StR 275/15Bgh / Câmara Penal II17 de dez. de 2015Dismissed
Extraído pela Omnilex
The Federal Court of Justice dismissed the defendants’ revisions against the Aachen Regional Court judgment. It held that the conviction for murder in order to facilitate another offence was legally unobjectionable even though the facilitated offence consisted of a jointly committed abortion. The Senate expressly maintained this view despite an earlier divergent ruling. The defendants were ordered to bear the costs of their remedies and the private prosecutors’ necessary expenses.
§ 211 Abs. 2 StGB, § 218 StGB, § 52 StGB; murder to facilitate another offence where the facilitated act is abortion: the homicide element and the abortion may stand in concurrence. A conviction for murder for the purpose of enabling another offence is not excluded merely because the other offence is a pregnancy termination committed at the same time. The Senate reiterates that the legal assessment of such constellation is unobjectionable (consid. not specified) and expressly disavows an earlier divergent approach. Upon dismissal of the revisions, the accused bear the costs and necessary outlays of the private prosecutors.
Entscheidungsdatum: 2015-12-17
Aktenzeichen: 2 StR 275/15
ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2015:171215B2STR275.15.0
Dokumenttyp: Beschluss
Normen: § 52 StGB, § 211 Abs 2 StGB, § 218 StGB
Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Aachen, 22. Dezember 2014, Az: 52 Ks 401 Js 169/14 - 8/14
Spruchkörper: 2. Strafsenat
Strafverfahren wegen Mordes: Ermöglichung einer anderen Straftat durch Tötung zur Beendigung der Schwangerschaft
Die Revisionen der Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Aachen vom 22. Dezember 2014 werden mit der Maßgabe, dass die Angeklagten des Mordes in Tateinheit mit Schwangerschaftsabbruch schuldig sind, als unbegründet verworfen, da die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigungen keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil der Angeklagten ergeben hat.
Ergänzend bemerkt der Senat:
Das Urteil ist auch rechtsfehlerfrei, soweit das Landgericht von Mord zur Ermöglichung einer anderen Tat - in Form des tateinheitlich begangenen Schwangerschaftsabbruchs - ausgegangen ist (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 14. Januar 2015 - 4 StR 532/14; Fischer, StGB 63. Aufl., § 211 Rn. 65). Soweit der Senat in seinem Urteil vom 3. Juni 2015 - 2 StR 422/14 (NStZ 2015, 693 f. mit Anm. Berster) in Unkenntnis der dadurch hervorgerufenen Divergenz abweichend entschieden hat, hält er daran nicht fest.
Jeder Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten seines Rechtsmittels und die den Nebenklägern im Revisionsverfahren entstandenen notwendigen Auslagen zu tragen.
Fischer Appl Eschelbach Ott Zeng
Extraído pela Omnilex
Whether the appeals against the Aachen judgment were well founded.
The revisions were unfounded and were dismissed.
Review of the judgment disclosed no legal error adverse to the accused.
Whether murder for facilitating another offence can be affirmed where the other offence is an abortion committed in concurrence with the killing.
Yes. The judgment was also correct insofar as it treated the killing as murder to facilitate another offence, namely the concurrently committed abortion.
The Senate held that the lower court's assessment was legally unobjectionable and expressly maintained that view, despite an earlier divergent decision.
Allocation of costs and necessary expenses in the revision proceedings.
Each accused must bear the costs of their own remedy and the necessary expenses of the private prosecutors.
Costs followed the dismissal of the revisions.
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.