Reversal of Acquittal on Appeal: What Changes with Judgment No. 15724/2025?

The Second Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation, with ruling no. 15724 filed on April 22, 2025, once again addresses the delicate issue of a revirement in the appellate stage. The case originates from the trial against E. T., acquitted in the first instance by the Court of Milan and subsequently convicted on appeal. The Supreme Court, while partially annulling the decision, establishes principles destined to impact future defense strategies and the conduct of the lower courts.

Reference Legislative Framework

The decision aligns with the provisions of Article 603, paragraph 3-bis, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (c.p.p.), which mandates the renewal of the trial investigation when an appeal aims to overturn an acquittal. The legislator's objective – in line with ECHR principles (see Dan v. Moldova, 2011) – is to ensure the adversarial principle operates "at the same level" before the judge who will rule on criminal liability.

• Art. 603 c.p.p.: mandatory renewal for decisive testimonial evidence.
• Art. 192 c.p.p.: criteria for evaluating evidence and the obligation of logical reasoning.
• Consistent Case Law: Cass. 16131/2023, 17965/2024, 42942/2024.

The Principle Affirmed by the Court of Cassation

The Court takes a position on two scenarios:

1. Substantial Uniformity between the statements made in the first instance and those renewed in appeal: the judge can base the conviction on the former, without needing to explicitly prefer them.
2. Discrepancy between the statements: in this case, the burden of reinforced reasoning arises, meaning an argumentative effort that explains why one source was given greater credibility over another.

In the context of appellate proceedings, a judge who, following the defendant's acquittal in the first instance, orders the renewal of the investigation may overturn the acquittal by issuing a conviction, without being obliged to give preference to the testimonial evidence gathered during the renewed investigation. This is because the judge can rely on the evidence taken in the previous stage of the proceedings in case of substantial uniformity of its content, while being required to provide reinforced reasoning regarding the decision to base the ruling on one deposition rather than another, in the different case of discrepancy between the content of the same.

Commentary: The maxim reiterates that the core of the appellate process is not the mere repetition of evidence, but its critical and reasoned evaluation. If the renewed testimonies do not add anything substantially different, the judge can legitimately refer to those already acquired. Otherwise, the Court requires "reinforced" reasoning: formal references are not enough; it is necessary to explain analytically why one version of events is preferred. This protects the defendant from arbitrary decisions and ensures transparency, in line with Article 111 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.

Practical Aspects for Defense and Prosecution

For the defense attorney, the ruling suggests:

• Requesting renewal only if it is genuinely capable of revealing significant divergences.
• Highlighting any discrepancies between the statements in the final brief to "compel" the judge to provide reinforced reasoning.

For the Public Prosecutor, the judgment represents a tool to support the grounds for conviction even when the renewed evidence does not differ, emphasizing the absence of logical gaps in the first-instance reasoning.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 15724/2025 clarifies the scope within which an appellate judge can overturn an acquittal: evidence from the first instance remains usable, but the criterion for selection must be evident. Reinforced reasoning is not a formality but the safeguard that ensures respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to defense. It is an unavoidable step for every criminal law practitioner who wishes to avoid annulments by the Court of Cassation.