Plea Bargaining and Crimes in Continuation: Analysis of Cassation Ruling No. 14203/2025

The ruling of the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation no. 14203, filed on April 10, 2025, represents an important step in the evolution of the plea bargaining procedure under art. 444 c.p.p. When the agreement concerns multiple crimes linked by the continuation rule, what happens if, during the proceedings, one of the so-called "satellite crimes" ceases to exist? The ruling provides an answer, offering useful clarifications for magistrates, lawyers, and defendants.

The Relevant Legal Framework

Three are the central provisions referred to by the Court:

• art. 444 c.p.p.: governs plea bargaining, granting parties the power to agree on a sentence within one-third of the limit;
• art. 81 c.p.: regulates continuation, allowing for an increase in the penalty for each additional crime beyond the most serious one;
• art. 129 c.p.p.: requires the judge to issue a acquittal judgment when the crime is extinguished or the fact does not exist.

The combined effect of these provisions creates a negotiation space: the defendant accepts responsibility, and the State "saves" procedural activity. However, the validity of the agreement can be challenged by subsequent events, such as the acquittal for one of the contested crimes.

Key Points of the Decision

The Court, presided over by E. M. and rapporteur E. C., annulled without referral the part of the plea bargain judgment relating to the crime of threat, absorbed into that of stalking. However, it did not overturn the entire agreement.

In the case of a plea bargain for multiple crimes linked by the continuation rule, the acquittal, during the proceedings, for any reason whatsoever, of one of the so-called satellite crimes, does not lead to the cancellation of the entire agreement, but only to the elimination of the penalty provided for said crime, provided that the judgment's reasoning indicates the individual increases to be applied for each crime and does not report only the final overall penalty. In such a case, there is no risk of undue alteration of the negotiated profile of the ruling. (Case in which the Court annulled without referral the plea bargain judgment limited to the crime of threat, deemed absorbed into that of stalking, eliminating, to the extent determined by the agreement between the parties, the related penalty increase).

Comment: the Court reiterates a logic of "conservation" of the agreement: what is lost is only the penalty increase related to the satellite crime. This approach protects the original negotiated will and, at the same time, avoids an unjustified "domino effect" that would otherwise render the plea bargaining instrument useless in complex proceedings.

The reasoning is fundamental: if the judge merely reports the overall penalty, the elimination of the individual increase becomes impossible, with a risk of nullity. The Cassation Court refers to consistent precedents (no. 23171/2018, no. 40320/2016) and departs from others (no. 20120/2016) that opted for total cancellation.

Operational Implications for Defense and Prosecution

The decision offers concrete practical guidance:

• The parties must detail the individual increases under art. 81 c.p. in the agreement;
• The judge, when drafting the reasoning, must report these items analytically;
• In case of subsequent events (acquittal, statute of limitations, reclassification), the interested party may request only a reduction of the penalty, without fearing the reopening of the entire proceeding.

This strengthens the predictability of the procedural outcome, encouraging the use of plea bargaining and reducing the judicial workload, in line with the deflationary objectives set by both the national legislator and European recommendations on the reasonable duration of proceedings.

Conclusions

Ruling no. 14203/2025 consolidates the trend favoring the stability of plea bargain agreements, limiting the repercussions of subsequent events to the affected sanctioning component only. For legal professionals, the message is clear: ensure the precision of penalty increases and, should a satellite crime cease to exist, act to exclude the related increment, without fearing the collapse of the entire agreement. For defendants, this represents a further guarantee of certainty and speed, values that are now indispensable in a modern criminal justice system.