Judgment No. 15506/2025 of the Court of Cassation: Intent between Causal Representation and Factual Detail

With decision No. 15506 of April 2, 2025 (filed April 18, 2025), the Sixth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation has once again ruled on the psychological element of a crime, resolving an appeal concerning injuries caused to public officials during a road chase. The Supreme Court partially annuls the order of the Juvenile Court of Naples with referral, 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, minor L. P. M., was accused of assault under Article 582 of the Italian Criminal Code. The defense argued that the young man had neither foreseen nor intended the injuries sustained by the officers who intervened to assist another patrol. The Court had deemed potential intent to be established; the Court of Cassation, however, reformulates the scope of the subjective element, reconnecting to the provisions of the Criminal Code (Articles 42-43) and previous case law (including, 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, without the need to foresee all detailed aspects of the concrete event.

The maxim, in itself concise, creates a watershed: it moves beyond an "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 Court of Cassation aligns with the approach of the Court of Justice of the EU on the principle of culpability (see judgment OG and PI, C-15/16), which requires a congruent psychological relationship between the perpetrator and the event, but not exhaustive foresight. The European Court of Human Rights, in the notable judgment Kononov v. Latvia, also emphasizes the element of reasonable, not absolute, foreseeability.

Domestically, the judgment 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

With judgment No. 15506/2025, the Court of Cassation 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 causal steps that are "weighty." For legal professionals, the decision represents a valuable tool for calibrating indictments, defenses, and reasoning, respecting the principle of culpability without descending into formalism.