Cologne Local Court<\/a><\/p>\n\nON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE<\/p>\n\n
Verdict<\/p>\n\n
In the criminal case<\/p>\n\n
against ***<\/p>\n\n
born on *** in ***, resident ***, *** national,<\/p>\n\n
for aggravated robbery<\/p>\n\n
the Local Court – Court of Aldermen – Cologne, Section 613, on the basis of the main hearing on November 26, 2009, which was attended by the following persons<\/p>\n\n
Judge at the local court *** as chairman<\/p>\n\n
*** as lay judges<\/p>\n\n
Public prosecutor ***<\/p>\n\n
as representative of the public prosecutor’s office<\/p>\n\n
Lawyer Brandl from Cologne<\/p>\n\n
as defense counsel for the defendant ***<\/p>\n\n
Judicial employees ***<\/p>\n\n
as clerk of the registry<\/p>\n\n
found to be right:<\/p>\n\n
The defendant is acquitted at the expense of the state treasury, which also has to bear her necessary expenses.<\/p>\n\n
Reasons:<\/p>\n\n
(abbreviated in accordance with Section 267 (4) StPO)<\/p>\n\n
In an indictment issued by the Cologne public prosecutor’s office on August 21, 2009 (53 Js 373\/08), the defendant was accused of committing aggravated robbery on January 21, 2008 in Cologne in a state of diminished culpability in accordance with \u00a7\u00a7 249, 250 paragraph 2 number 1, 252 StGB (German Criminal Code) in unity (\u00a7 52 StGB) with grievous bodily harm in accordance with \u00a7\u00a7 223, 224 paragraph 1 number 2 StGB.<\/p>\n\n
The defendant was accused of going into a changing room of the *** store in *** on January 21, 2008 at around 7:15 p.m. and putting a gray long-sleeved shirt and two blue short-sleeved shirts into a bag she had brought with her. She left the store quickly without paying for the goods in order to keep the items of clothing for herself. The store detective, the witness ***, had observed the act and had run after her, asking her to stop. However, the defendant did not comply and instead pushed the witness away from her and also used her elbows. She also fought off the witness *** by hitting her. The defendant could not be stopped. Witness *** and witness *** took up the chase, with the defendant holding the bag with the stolen clothes tightly against her. In front of the McDonald’s store on *** Street, the defendant suddenly pulled a pepper spray from the inside pocket of her jacket and sprayed it in the direction of the witnesses’ faces. The defendant went to the parking garage *** and threw away the clothes there. She was apprehended by police officers on the first level of the parking garage. Both witnesses suffered injuries to their eyes from the pepper spray. <\/p>\n\n
The defendant denied the theft. The spraying with pepper spray was true, she had felt harassed by the witnesses and also by the dog of the witness ***. <\/p>\n\n
Based on the testimony of the witnesses heard, in particular witness ***, the court cannot assume that the defendant stole three textiles from the *** store. Witness *** did not see the defendant stealing, but rather only found a security tag in a changing room. He then wanted to confront the defendant and followed her through the security system, which did not work. He did not touch the defendant on the street and she fled. In front of a parking garage, she then sprayed him and the witness *** with pepper spray, injuring him. The police later found goods belonging to the company *** elsewhere in the parking garage, not at the defendant’s house. <\/p>\n\n
The court considers this statement to be credible, as it is coherent and comprehensible. It is not clear to the court from the statement that the defendant stole the textiles from the company *** found in the parking garage. She was not seen during the actual act of theft. It is also significant for the court that the witness *** only found one security tag, but a total of three items of clothing were found in the parking garage, which is inconsistent. Ultimately, however, it is not at all clear whether the items found in the parking garage were placed there by the defendant: The defendant was on the first floor of the parking garage when she was arrested, and the items of clothing were found in the basement. <\/p>\n\n
For factual reasons, the court is therefore unable to assume theft.<\/p>\n\n
In the opinion of the court, however, there was dangerous bodily harm according to \u00a7\u00a7 223, 224 paragraph 1 number 2 StGB, as the defendant used pepper spray on the witnesses *** and ***. In the opinion of the court, there was no justification for this. All witnesses reported unanimously that none of them had sat in close proximity to the defendant or even touched her. In this respect, the court also agrees with the credible testimony of witness ***. <\/p>\n\n
Even if the defendant had assumed a situation of self-defense, it would only have been a case of putative self-defense with the consequence that the defendant would have to be charged with negligent bodily harm pursuant to \u00a7 229 StGB; the necessary applications for punishment are available.<\/p>\n\n
Ultimately, however, the defendant must be acquitted. The court cannot rule out the possibility that the defendant was not culpable at the time of the offense in accordance with \u00a7 20 StGB. In this respect, the court follows the statements of the expert witness Dr. *** in the main hearing. He stated that, in principle, the defendant should be recognized as having a pathological mental disorder within the meaning of the aforementioned provision, namely a “bipolar affective psychosis”. In times of acute exacerbation of the psychosis, a suspension of the ability to understand or control within the meaning of \u00a7 20 StGB is generally to be assumed, while in the case of mild symptoms, a significant reduction in the ability to control within the meaning of \u00a7 21 StGB is to be discussed. In the present case, the defendant was undergoing partial inpatient hospital treatment at the time of the offense. Although only diminished culpability was to be assumed for the time of the alleged theft, with regard to the act with the pepper spray it was to be taken into account that there had been further influences on her psychosis, including the fear of physical proximity and the willingness to defend herself. At this time, the defendant was manifestly ill, so that, due to the connection between the illness and the situation, incapacity for guilt could not be ruled out. <\/p>\n\n
The court follows the expert’s explanations, as his report is conclusive and comprehensible. The defendant must therefore be acquitted on factual grounds due to the lack of culpability. <\/p>\n\n
The decision on costs is based on \u00a7 467 StPO.***Judge at the local court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
617 Ls 93\/09Final on 04.12.2009 Cologne, 11.12.2009 Cologne Local Court ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE Verdict In the criminal case against *** born on *** in ***, resident ***, *** national, for aggravated robbery the Local Court – Court of Aldermen – Cologne, Section 613, on the basis of the main hearing on November 26, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"template":"","class_list":["post-1446","entscheidungen","type-entscheidungen","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entscheidungen\/1446","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entscheidungen"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/entscheidungen"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entscheidungen\/1446\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1448,"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/entscheidungen\/1446\/revisions\/1448"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rechtsanwalt-brandl.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1446"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}