Commentary on Judgment No. 36402 of 2023: Reflections on Preterintentional Homicide

Judgment No. 36402 of April 3, 2023, by the Court of Cassation represents a significant intervention in the matter of preterintentional homicide, raising fundamental questions regarding culpability and the foreseeability of events arising from violent acts. In this decision, the Court rejected the exception of unconstitutionality concerning Article 584 of the Criminal Code, clarifying the boundaries of the subjective element in homicide offenses caused by assault or battery.

Context of the Judgment

The case heard by the Court involved the defendant C. U., accused of preterintentional homicide following an assault. The Court of Appeal of Turin had initially raised doubts about the unreasonableness of attributing the lethal outcome to the defendant's actions, leading to interpretive questions on the principle of culpability. However, the Court of Cassation established that the interpretation of Article 584 of the Criminal Code is consistent with the principle of foreseeability, which is essential for the commission of the offense.

Analysis of the Judgment's Maxim

Death following assault or battery - Alleged unreasonableness of attributing the event - Violation of the principle of culpability - Question of constitutionality - Manifestly unfounded. In the context of preterintentional homicide, the exception of unconstitutionality, raised with reference to Article 27, paragraphs one and three, of the Constitution, of Article 584 of the Criminal Code, in the interpretation that identifies the subjective element of the offense in the unified intent of assault or battery, is manifestly unfounded, as the assessment concerning the foreseeability of the event on which the existence of the offense depends is inherent in the norm itself, which deems it absolutely probable that death may result from a violent action against a person.

This maxim highlights the importance of foreseeability in the context of preterintentional homicide. The Court emphasized that the subjective element of the offense cannot be separated from the consideration of the consequences of the violent act. It is therefore crucial for the judge to evaluate not only the act itself but also its lethal potential.

Implications and Conclusions

Judgment No. 36402 offers important food for thought for legal professionals and citizens alike. It reaffirms the need for a clear interpretation of criminal laws, particularly regarding criminal liability for violent acts. In a social context where violence is unfortunately present, it is crucial that the law adequately responds to the dynamics of human behavior while simultaneously safeguarding the fundamental rights of the accused.

• Reaffirmation of the principle of foreseeability
• Importance of the subjective element in the offense
• Normative and jurisprudential clarity

In conclusion, the Court of Cassation has confirmed the validity of existing norms, arguing that the foreseeability of lethal events as a consequence of violent acts is a fundamental consideration in criminal law. This approach not only protects victims of violence but also clarifies the boundaries of criminal responsibility in complex situations.