Commentary on Judgment No. 624 of 2024: Preterintentional Homicide and the Role of Foreseeability

The recent judgment No. 624 of October 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Bari, represents an important moment of reflection for Italian criminal law, particularly concerning the crime of preterintentional homicide. The Court analyzed in detail the subjective element necessary to establish this offense, emphasizing the combination of intent and concrete foreseeability.

The Subjective Element in Preterintentional Homicide

The Court clarified that the psychological element of preterintentional homicide arises from the combination of intent, referring to the crime of assault or battery, and the concrete foreseeability of the fatal event. In this specific case, the defendant, I. B., had grabbed his partner by the arm, restricting her movements as she tried to break free. This conduct proved fatal, as the woman impacted a glass door, sustaining injuries that caused her death.

Subjective element - Intent mixed with concrete foreseeability - Case law. The psychological element of the crime of preterintentional homicide is a combination of intent, for the crime of assault or battery, and concrete foreseeability, for the fatal event. (In this case, the Court found the psychological coefficient of concrete foreseeability to be present in light of the defendant's conduct, who had grabbed his partner by the arm, restricting her movements while she tried to break free, in proximity to a glass door, which constituted an evident source of danger, against which the woman impacted, sustaining injuries that caused her death).

Foreseeability of the Fatal Event

A crucial aspect of the judgment is the assessment of the concrete foreseeability of the fatal event. The Court held that the defendant, acting in a context of high danger, had a responsibility to foresee the consequences of his actions. This principle aligns with European and national jurisprudence, which requires careful consideration of the circumstances in which aggressive conduct unfolds.

• The defendant's conduct must be evaluated within the context of the risk created.
• The foreseeability of the event must be analyzed in light of the methods of execution of the crime.
• Criminal responsibility is based on the ability to foresee the outcome of one's actions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 624 of 2024 offers an important reflection on preterintentional homicide and the subjective element. The distinction between intent and foreseeability is fundamental to understanding criminal responsibility in situations of violence. It is essential that legal professionals and citizens understand the meaning of these dynamics so that tragic events like the one described can be prevented. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and cases like this remind us of the importance of a justice system that is aware and attentive to the complexity of human relationships.