The verdict was made in the trial of the fatal shot at a gas station employee in the dispute over the corona mask requirement. The accused Mario N. has been sentenced to life imprisonment. In its verdict, the Bad Kreuznach District Court classified the act as murder and thus followed the request of the public prosecutor.
Contrary to what was demanded by the public prosecutor’s office and the private prosecutor, the jury did not find any particular degree of guilt. In this case, a release of the now 50-year-old after 15 years in prison would have been legally possible, but practically impossible.
The defense had rejected the charge of murder in the process. The accused’s two lawyers had pleaded for manslaughter with significantly reduced criminal responsibility of the accused, who, according to an expert, had around two per thousand alcohol in his blood. The defense did not name a penalty.
The act on September 18, 2021 at a gas station in Idar-Oberstein, Rhineland-Palatinate, had triggered nationwide horror. In the six-month trial, the question of who was the perpetrator did not play a major role, as it was undisputed from the start. Mario N. had confessed to getting a gun at home out of anger that the young cashier didn’t want to sell him beer without a corona mask and shot him in the forehead when he visited the gas station again. There was also video footage of the crime. He didn’t have a firearms license for the revolver, so he was also charged with illegal gun ownership.
The characteristics of the murder and the defendant’s ability to control were disputed
Important clues in the taking of evidence were chat histories in which Mario N. made disparaging remarks about refugees, Greta Thunberg, Fridays for Future activists, Jens Spahn, the federal government and their corona policy.
Mario N. (right) speaks to one of his defense attorneys in front of the district court.
(Photo: Sebastian Gollnow/dpa)
It remained disputed whether Mario N. acted out of base motives and insidiousness and whether the guilt was particularly serious. For the public prosecutor and the lawyer for the victim’s mother, who took part in the trial as a joint plaintiff, this was beyond a doubt. The defense, on the other hand, did not see the murder characteristics of malice and base motives.
The assessment of controllability also played an important role in the process. In the opinion of the public prosecutor and the co-prosecutor, the accused was fully culpable, despite considerable alcohol consumption. She did not see any mitigating circumstances, but the defense did. In his last statement before the verdict was announced, the accused once again emphasized how sorry he was for the crime. The judges found that the two elements of murder were present and see the accused as fully responsible. The verdict is not yet final, but the defense and public prosecutor can appeal against it.