The Death of a Technical Consultant in Criminal Proceedings: An Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 31764 of 2025

Criminal proceedings are a complex mechanism, in which every piece of evidence holds crucial importance for ascertaining the truth. Among the figures who contribute to shedding light on specific technical aspects, the court-appointed technical consultant (CTU) or party-appointed technical consultant (CTP) plays a fundamental role. But what happens when an unpredictable event, such as the consultant's death, occurs before their report can be fully discussed at trial? It is to this delicate issue that the Court of Cassation, with Ruling No. 31764 of September 23, 2025 (hearing of July 10, 2025), has provided a clear answer, consolidating an important principle regarding the acquisition of evidence.

The Crucial Role of Technical Consultancy in Trial

In the context of Italian criminal procedural law, technical consultancy is an essential tool to assist the judge in understanding facts that require specific scientific, technical, or artistic expertise. The consultant's report, although not binding on the judge, represents a significant source of evidence. The general rule is that the consultant must be heard at trial, so that the parties can ask questions and clarify every aspect of their expert opinion, thereby ensuring the adversarial principle and the full formation of evidence in the presence of the judge.

The Unforeseen: The Consultant's Death and the Acquisition of the Report

The case examined by the Supreme Court, presided over by V. M. and with T. A. as rapporteur, concerns a situation in which the technical consultant died during the proceedings. Initially, the Court of Appeal of Potenza had declared the report inadmissible because it had been included in the trial file without the parties' agreement, ordering the consultant's examination. However, following his death, the issue of acquiring the report arose. The Cassation Court deemed the subsequent decision of the Court of Appeal to acquire the report to be correct, based on the principle that the consultant's death constitutes an unforeseeable circumstance that renders the act unrepeatable.

In matters of trial readings, the death of a technical consultant during the course of the proceedings constitutes an unforeseeable circumstance that allows for the acquisition of their report into the trial file. (In this specific case, the Court deemed correct the decision of the Court of Appeal which, having declared the report inadmissible because it was included in the trial file without the parties' agreement and thus ordered the consultant's examination, subsequently ordered the acquisition of the report following the latter's death).

This maxim is of fundamental importance. It clarifies that, although the rule is the oral examination of the consultant, the law must provide for exceptions to deal with exceptional and unforeseeable situations. The consultant's death makes their examination impossible, transforming their report into an "unrepeatable" act in its original form. In such circumstances, the legal system, in adherence to the principles of procedural economy and the pursuit of truth, allows for the acquisition of the report into the trial file, ensuring that a valuable piece of evidence is not lost.

The Regulatory Framework: Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Precedents

The Cassation ruling is based on the interpretation of Article 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which governs the reading of unrepeatable acts. This article allows for the acquisition into the trial file of acts performed during preliminary investigations or the preliminary hearing when their repetition has become impossible due to unforeseeable causes. Jurisprudence has long dealt with similar cases, as demonstrated by previous consistent maxims (No. 46080 of 2018) and other decisions that have defined the boundaries of this exception. This approach ensures that the proceedings do not stall in the face of unexpected events, balancing the right to adversarial proceedings with the need for efficient justice.

• Unforeseeable Circumstance: The consultant's death is an unforeseeable event beyond the control of the parties.
• Unrepeatability of the Act: The consultant's examination has become impossible, rendering their report unrepeatable in its original form.
• Acquisition to the File: The report is acquired into the trial file, becoming fully usable as evidence.
• Balancing of Interests: The decision balances the principle of adversarial proceedings with the need not to lose evidence relevant to the final decision.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 31764 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents an important reference point for the management of evidence in criminal proceedings. It reiterates the flexibility of the legal system in dealing with unforeseen situations, ensuring that the pursuit of procedural truth is not hindered by extraordinary events. For legal professionals, this pronouncement offers clarity and certainty, precisely outlining the cases in which a technical consultant's report, even in the absence of their oral testimony, can be legitimately acquired and evaluated by the judge. A principle that strengthens the judicial system's ability to adapt and ensure fair and effective justice, even in the face of life's unpredictability.