Cassation Ruling No. 15506/2025: Intent between Causal Representation and Factual Detail

With decision No. 15506 of April 2, 2025 (filed April 18, 2025), the Court of Cassation, Sixth Criminal Section, returns to rule on the psychological element of a crime, resolving an appeal concerning injuries caused to public officials during a road chase. The Supreme College partially annuls with referral the order of the Juvenile Court of Naples, clarifying when the foresight of the event can be considered sufficient to constitute intent.

The Heart of the Dispute: What Must the Agent Foresee?

The defendant, the minor L. P. M., was accused of injuries under Article 582 of the Criminal Code. The defense argued that the young man had neither foreseen nor intended the injuries suffered by the officers who intervened to assist another patrol. The Court had deemed eventual intent to be established; the Cassation, however, reformulates the scope of the subjective element, reconnecting to the codified law (Articles 42-43 of the Criminal Code) and previous case law (among others, Cass. 47152/2022 and 8004/2021).

For the existence of intent, the agent must foresee the most significant causal steps in which the typical offense unfolds, and is not required to foresee all detailed aspects of the concrete offense.

The maxim, in itself lapidary, creates a watershed: it overcomes the "omniscient" view of intent, reducing the area of necessary foresight to only the essential causal junctures. In practice, if the subject understands that their conduct can reasonably produce the typical event, intent is established, even if they do not foresee the entire sequence of micro-events.

Operational Implications for Defense and Prosecution

• Defense Strategies: The defense line based on the absence of foresight of specific consequences (e.g., injuries to individual officers) loses strength. It is necessary to demonstrate that the defendant was unaware of the main causal link itself.
• Investigation Activities: The Public Prosecutor's Office will need to focus on evidence showing awareness of the "significant causal steps" (high speed, presence of obstacles, intervention of third parties), without having to reconstruct every detail.
• Role of the Judge: The reasoning must illustrate which causal steps the defendant foresaw and why they are classifiable as "significant."

Comparison with European Law and Domestic Precedents

The position of the Cassation aligns with the approach of the EU Court of Justice on the principle of culpability (see ruling OG and PI, C-15/16), which requires a congruent psychological link between the perpetrator and the event, but not exhaustive foresight. The ECtHR, in the notable ruling Kononov v. Latvia, also emphasizes the element of reasonable, not absolute, foreseeability.

Domestically, the ruling is in line with Cass. 52869/2018, which stated that "intent does not require foresight of every execution method." However, the new ruling selects the area of necessary representation: only the causal "nodes" that shape the typical offense.

Conclusions

The Cassation, with ruling No. 15506/2025, offers a workable criterion for judging intent: the agent must foresee the essential, not the accessory. This entails a simplification of proof, but also a greater argumentative burden to identify those "weighty" causal steps. For legal professionals, the decision represents a valuable tool for calibrating indictments, defenses, and reasoning, respecting the principle of culpability without descending into formalism.