Summary of Reasoning:  One is guilty of complicity under Art. 25 C.P.S. when one “intentionally assists in the commission of a felony or misdemeanor”, that is, when one intentionally helps the commission of a felony or misdemeanor.

 The acts in question of the appellant constitute the objective elements of complicity; he put Judith Gerber in touch with the procurer, Ineichen, who gave her, during their visit, the address of the abortionist Wyss, and informed Wyss that she would come to him and recommended her to him.  Wyss then attempted the abortion.  The act of the defendant is one of the links in the chain which ended in attempted abortion.  It is of little importance that he did not give Judith Gerber the address of the abortionist himself.  It is equally without importance that Judith Gerber already knew Ineichen and could have located him without the help of the appellant.  Art. 25 does not require that the offense could not have been committed without the aid of the accomplice; it suffices that this aid, in the circumstances of the case, has helped the commission of the felony or misdemeanor.  The question of whether the assistance has an adequate causal relationship to the harm does not arise.

 Article 25 is applicable when, in fact, assistance is in causal relation with the harm and when the will of the accomplice was to help bring about this harm, even if, in the ordinary course of things, the aid given was not really suited to the result obtained. . . . .

* * *

 Cour de Cassation – MM. Nageli, Fassler, Logoz, Arnold and Tschopp.