Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
This thread is about historical criminal law cases. I thought it would be interesting to read criminal stories- true ones which happened indeed. If there is an interest I will soon follow with more. Since I am studying German law the cases will be German cases.
The first case is one of the oldest cases still actual. Since over 150 years such a case did only happen twice- and here it is:
Rose/ Rosahl, Preußisches Obertribunal, Goldtammers Archiv resp. Archiv für Preußisches Strafrecht vol. 7 (1859), pages 322- 337
The wood trader Rosahl from Schliepzig near Halle owed the carpenter Schliebe much money. Schliebe went from Lieskau to Schliepzig only to get the money from his deptors. Whenever Schliebe was at Rosahl, he talked to his assistant Rose that he would pay 1.000 Reichsthaler to kill Schliebe. 300 Rthr. at once and one each week. That he said since March or April 1858. On September 11 1858 Schliebe went to Schliepzig to repair the local dwell pump. At 6 oclock in the evening Rose came back from mowing Rosahls grass. Rosahl complained he had to pay 400 Rthr. So he pleaded again Rose to kill Schliebe, who he hated very much. He said to kill this evil man would be no sin. This time Rose was ready to do so.
Before that date Rose was not convinced totally but still he prepared the deed. He bought powder, bullets and let Rosahls rifle repaired. Another rifle was borrowed by Rosahl. Rose loaded the weapons and went to a position, the so called Hasengarten (rabbit garden), from which he could fire at a long range of the way Schliebe had to go.
It was already dark when Rose spotted a man coming down the street. Without identifying Schliebe, Rose fired with his gun at the man. The man cried out when he was hit. But he was not dead as Rose got to know when he neared his victim. So he shot at him a second time and then smashed the head of his victim. Then he went to Rose back to report and then to throw the weapons into the Saale river.
But, as many perhaps already supposed, it was not Schliebe lying dead on the dark street. Indeed it was a 17 years old high school student named Ernst Harnisch, son of the cantor in Schliepzig. He was on his way home from holing papers for his medical examination when he was killed.
A little later Schliebe and his assistant came along the way to Schliepzig. There they found the dead body and called the police. There he supposed he should be murdered, not Harnisch. He assumed a deptor of him, Rosahl could have done it, and if not he, his worker Rose. Both were arrested where they confessed the murder.
The jury found them guilty with more than 7 votes (in German criminal lawsuits law until this day a majority of 2/3 is sufficient). Both were sentenced to death by the Guillotine (until 1949 in Germany executions were made with the Guillotine). Both appealed against that sentence to the Prussian Obertribunal.
The case Rose was nearly hopeless. An error in persona (to shoot the wrong person, but hit the one who was aimed) was already in that days unremarkeable. He killed the man he aimed at.
For the instigator however, the question is, how such an error in persona of the committer is relevant. Is it also an error in persona or an aberratio ictus (to aim at the target, but hitting someone else). That was questioned.
The Obertribunal judged because of the strong ties between committer and instigator, that everything unremarkeable for the committer has also be unremarkeable for the instigator, an error in persona of the committer is also an error in persona for the instigator. That accessority between deed and instigation can only be kept by that judgement. So also in Rosahls case no errors of the Jury were found. To my knowledge both were executed.
Over 130 years later the Bundesgerichtshof on 25th October 1990 had to judge a similar case, the so called Hoferbenfall (Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen (BGHSt), vol. 37, page 214). Until that there was only a discussion in the literature but no other case occurred. In BGHSt 37, 214 the BGH followed and continued the Prussian Obertribunal and sentenced to life imprisonment a father, an old farmer, who had tried to kill his son because of trouble with the farm. But the committer killed the wrong person, a neighbour. The same story. Thats why the case is also known as Rose/ Rosahl II.
I hope this was interesting. It is an attempt and if feedback is positive I will continue to post cases here.
Adler
The first case is one of the oldest cases still actual. Since over 150 years such a case did only happen twice- and here it is:
Rose/ Rosahl, Preußisches Obertribunal, Goldtammers Archiv resp. Archiv für Preußisches Strafrecht vol. 7 (1859), pages 322- 337
The wood trader Rosahl from Schliepzig near Halle owed the carpenter Schliebe much money. Schliebe went from Lieskau to Schliepzig only to get the money from his deptors. Whenever Schliebe was at Rosahl, he talked to his assistant Rose that he would pay 1.000 Reichsthaler to kill Schliebe. 300 Rthr. at once and one each week. That he said since March or April 1858. On September 11 1858 Schliebe went to Schliepzig to repair the local dwell pump. At 6 oclock in the evening Rose came back from mowing Rosahls grass. Rosahl complained he had to pay 400 Rthr. So he pleaded again Rose to kill Schliebe, who he hated very much. He said to kill this evil man would be no sin. This time Rose was ready to do so.
Before that date Rose was not convinced totally but still he prepared the deed. He bought powder, bullets and let Rosahls rifle repaired. Another rifle was borrowed by Rosahl. Rose loaded the weapons and went to a position, the so called Hasengarten (rabbit garden), from which he could fire at a long range of the way Schliebe had to go.
It was already dark when Rose spotted a man coming down the street. Without identifying Schliebe, Rose fired with his gun at the man. The man cried out when he was hit. But he was not dead as Rose got to know when he neared his victim. So he shot at him a second time and then smashed the head of his victim. Then he went to Rose back to report and then to throw the weapons into the Saale river.
But, as many perhaps already supposed, it was not Schliebe lying dead on the dark street. Indeed it was a 17 years old high school student named Ernst Harnisch, son of the cantor in Schliepzig. He was on his way home from holing papers for his medical examination when he was killed.
A little later Schliebe and his assistant came along the way to Schliepzig. There they found the dead body and called the police. There he supposed he should be murdered, not Harnisch. He assumed a deptor of him, Rosahl could have done it, and if not he, his worker Rose. Both were arrested where they confessed the murder.
The jury found them guilty with more than 7 votes (in German criminal lawsuits law until this day a majority of 2/3 is sufficient). Both were sentenced to death by the Guillotine (until 1949 in Germany executions were made with the Guillotine). Both appealed against that sentence to the Prussian Obertribunal.
The case Rose was nearly hopeless. An error in persona (to shoot the wrong person, but hit the one who was aimed) was already in that days unremarkeable. He killed the man he aimed at.
For the instigator however, the question is, how such an error in persona of the committer is relevant. Is it also an error in persona or an aberratio ictus (to aim at the target, but hitting someone else). That was questioned.
The Obertribunal judged because of the strong ties between committer and instigator, that everything unremarkeable for the committer has also be unremarkeable for the instigator, an error in persona of the committer is also an error in persona for the instigator. That accessority between deed and instigation can only be kept by that judgement. So also in Rosahls case no errors of the Jury were found. To my knowledge both were executed.
Over 130 years later the Bundesgerichtshof on 25th October 1990 had to judge a similar case, the so called Hoferbenfall (Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen (BGHSt), vol. 37, page 214). Until that there was only a discussion in the literature but no other case occurred. In BGHSt 37, 214 the BGH followed and continued the Prussian Obertribunal and sentenced to life imprisonment a father, an old farmer, who had tried to kill his son because of trouble with the farm. But the committer killed the wrong person, a neighbour. The same story. Thats why the case is also known as Rose/ Rosahl II.
I hope this was interesting. It is an attempt and if feedback is positive I will continue to post cases here.
Adler
I'll list it in the sticky later. 
. Well done Adler!
