In the end it was negligent homicide. Niclas H. is found guilty on Wednesday afternoon in Würzburg: he negligently killed Theresa Stahl in April 2017, judges the presiding judge of the regional court. He is given one year and three months probation.
You could say what difference does it make, a person is dead. Theresa Stahl is not coming back. She was just 20 years old when she was hit by the car on a country road that Niclas H. drove after a wine festival with an alcohol level of more than three per thousand in her blood. She is thrown into a field in the darkness in Eisenheim in Lower Franconia, Niclas H. drives on, three friends with him in the car, also drunk. Theresa’s friend comes to her aid, but she dies a short time later in the hospital. And yet, it makes a difference to her father, Ronald Stahl. He is happy about the new verdict, he says. After the announcement, he had thanked the judge for the effort that had been made. More could not have been achieved with human means.
Michael Schaller judged on Wednesday that Niclas H. could very well be held responsible for his actions on that April night, despite being full of intoxication. Schaller judges according to youth criminal law because of the severity of the guilt. Part of the punishment is that Niclas H. must adhere to various conditions for two years, undergo therapy or at least prove to his probation officer that he is trying to find a place in therapy. He should also work 400 hours and be abstinent. He can apply for his driver’s license, which he had to surrender in April 2017, in three months at the earliest and can only get it back if he passes the relevant test.
Four and a half years have passed since Theresa Stahl’s death, followed by a brief initial trial and then a tough appeal process, which was interrupted and resumed because of new investigations. A suspicion of incitement to murder by the passenger was not substantiated, the appeals against the punishment of the passengers were ultimately withdrawn, the fines of 1000, 1500 and 2000 euros for the three young men became legally binding this week.
Ronald Stahl’s lawyer, Philipp Schulz-Merkel, was “very satisfied” the evening after the verdict. The fact that H. was convicted of negligent homicide shows that you can’t get into a car drunk, drive around someone and then hope that you will be punished for drinking and not for killing.
The first verdict was: 5000 euros fine, one year driving ban
Roughly speaking, the verdict in the first instance was: Because Niclas H. was so drunk he could not be held responsible for his actions, it was said at the time that an expert could not rule out that he was not at fault. H. was supposed to pay 5000 euros and was banned from driving for one year. The punishment, felt by many to be too mild, sparked outrage nationwide.
Judge Schaller came to a different conclusion in the appeal proceedings – because experts had found that H. was culpable. Schaller ruled according to juvenile criminal law. According to the law, H. is considered an adolescent, he was actually 18, so he no longer automatically fell into youth law, but was still under 21, from where adult law applies. H. shows “maturity delays”, said Schaller, since childhood he had consumed alcohol and cannabis at an early age.
However, in the verdict, Schaller does not want youth law to be understood as milder per se. In fact, some adults can pay a fine for an act, while a young person is arrested for two weeks. A juvenile criminal judgment does not generally serve as atonement and compensation for guilt, as is the case with adults, but rather as an education. The focus is on the question: What does the accused need to prevent them from committing any more criminal offenses?
Schaller also judged on Wednesday according to the severity of the guilt. It takes effect if someone does not commit an act out of an “inner compulsion”, for example out of self-defense, but, to put it casually, out of frenzy, for no real reason. Ronald Stahl’s attorney records this as part of his victory.
Hs defense attorney Hans-Jochen Schrepfer finds the applied juvenile criminal law “wrong, but possibly right for the pacification of the matter”. He had called for 300 hours of community service, but calls the judgment “very moderate.” He now wants to calmly discuss whether he will go into appeal with his client and thus go to the Bavarian Supreme Court. He has a week after the verdict is announced.