Court of Cassation: No Nullity for Omitted Audio Recording of Defendant's Spontaneous Statements (Judgment no. 8893/2025)

The documentation of procedural acts is crucial for judicial transparency. But what happens if an electrical "blackout" prevents the recording of key moments? The Court of Cassation, with judgment no. 8893 of January 24, 2025 (filed on March 4, 2025), has clarified the validity of acts in case of omitted audio recording of the defendant's spontaneous statements. Let's analyze this important decision.

The Case and Relevant Regulations

The case concerned a hearing where, due to a "blackout," it was not possible to audio record the spontaneous statements of the defendant N. N. This raised the issue of the nullity of the minutes and the sentence issued by the Court of Appeal of Trieste. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of the articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) governing the documentation of acts and the principle of the exhaustiveness of nullities.

• Art. 134 CPP: Methods of documentation.
• Art. 135 CPP: Content of the minutes.
• Art. 139 CPP: Phonographic documentation.
• Art. 142 CPP: Summary minutes.
• Art. 177 CPP: Exhaustiveness of nullities.

The Maxim of the Court of Cassation and the Principle of Exhaustiveness

The Court of Cassation, with the ruling of President V. D. N. and Rapporteur V. P., rejected the appeal. The maxim, which summarizes the principle of law, is as follows:

In terms of documentation of acts, the omitted audio recording of spontaneous statements made by the defendant at a hearing, attributable to the interruption of the audio recording due to an electrical "blackout," does not result in the nullity of the stenographic minutes, nor of the summary minutes otherwise drawn up, nor of the consequent sentence, as this hypothesis does not fall within any of the nullities exhaustively provided for "by law."

This decision is fundamental. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle of the exhaustiveness of procedural nullities (Art. 177 CPP): an act is null only in cases expressly provided for by law. The omitted audio recording due to a "blackout," even if concerning spontaneous statements, does not fall among the exhaustively provided causes of nullity, provided that the act was nevertheless documented in other forms (e.g., written minutes). This orientation is in line with previous case law (judgment no. 35044 of 2010).

Conclusions

Judgment no. 8893/2025 of the Court of Cassation reinforces the principle of the exhaustiveness of nullities, clarifying that not every technical imperfection is sufficient to invalidate a procedural act. It is essential that the violation falls within one of the hypotheses exhaustively provided for by law. This ensures greater legal certainty, preventing unforeseen events not specifically provided for as causes of nullity from compromising the validity of proceedings. For legal professionals, the ruling emphasizes the importance of a rigorous application of the rules on nullities, prioritizing the substance of procedural guarantees.