The Role of Motive in Circumstantial Evidence: Analysis of Judgment No. 12217/2025 of the Criminal Court of Cassation

In the landscape of criminal law, circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role, especially in the absence of direct evidence. However, its assessment requires careful application of the principles established by law and jurisprudence to ensure the correct attribution of criminal responsibility. The recent judgment No. 12217 of January 30, 2025 (filed on March 27, 2025) of the Criminal Court of Cassation offers a fundamental clarification on the role of motive within the framework of circumstantial evidence, reiterating key principles regarding the evaluation of evidence.

Judgment 12217/2025: The Context and the Fundamental Principle

The ruling under review, issued by the First Criminal Section with President F. Casa and Rapporteur C. Russo, partially annulled with referral a judgment of the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Palermo, which had affirmed the responsibility of the defendant A. M. for the crime of homicide (Art. 575 of the Criminal Code). The core of the issue lay in the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and, in particular, in the weight attributed to the motive for the crime. The Court of Cassation censured the affirmation of responsibility based on the autonomous evidentiary value of the motive, used to compensate for the uncertainties of an otherwise weak evidentiary framework.

This approach, according to the Supreme Court, contravenes established principles regarding circumstantial evidence, which require that the circumstances be serious, precise, and consistent, as established by Art. 192, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The motive, while an element of great importance for understanding the reasons for a crime, cannot by itself constitute a pillar on which to base a conviction if the rest of the evidence does not reach the necessary threshold of certainty.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation: When Motive "Catalyzes" Circumstances

In matters of evidence, the motive for a crime can serve as a catalyzing and reinforcing factor for the value of the circumstances relied upon for a judgment of responsibility, only if, following analytical assessment and within the framework of an overall global evaluation, they appear, also by virtue of the interpretation offered by the motive, clear, precise, and convergent for their unambiguous significance. (In application of this principle, the Court held that the affirmation of responsibility for the crime of homicide based on the autonomous evidentiary value of the motive, aimed at compensating for the uncertainties of the remaining evidentiary framework, was not in compliance with the rules for evaluating evidence).

This maxim crystallizes the principle that motive does not have autonomous evidentiary weight, but operates as a