Commentary on Judgment No. 32162 of 2024: Constitutional Legitimacy Aspects of Article 116 of the Criminal Code

Judgment No. 32162 of June 19, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers important food for thought on the issue of anomalous participation in a crime and the constitutional legitimacy of Article 116 of the Criminal Code. In this context, the Court reiterated the importance of distinguishing between various legal institutes, highlighting the differences between aberratio delicti and anomalous participation, and firmly emphasizing the manifest groundlessness of the raised constitutional legitimacy question.

The Constitutional Legitimacy Question

The Court examined the question of the constitutional legitimacy of Article 116 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Article 3 of the Constitution, with reference to the less severe sanctioning treatment provided by Article 83 of the Criminal Code for the single-victim aberrant offense. According to the Court, the two institutes are not identical, as while in aberratio delicti the perpetrator is unique and the committed act is different from the intended one, the institute referred to in Article 116 is characterized by greater dangerousness arising from collective criminal action.

Question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 116, Criminal Code, in relation to Article 3 of the Constitution, with reference to the less severe sanctioning treatment provided by Article 83, Criminal Code - Manifest groundlessness - Reasons. Regarding anomalous participation in a crime, the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 116 of the Criminal Code, in relation to Article 3 of the Constitution, with reference to the less severe sanctioning treatment provided by Article 83 of the Criminal Code for the single-victim aberrant offense, is manifestly unfounded, as these are not identical institutes. While in the so-called "aberratio delicti" there is only one perpetrator and the negligently committed conduct differs from the intentionally planned one, the institute referred to in Article 116 is characterized by greater dangerousness determined by collective criminal action, as well as by the negligent reliance of the subject who did not intend the different crime, on the intentional activity of others over which they have no control.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for Italian criminal law, as it clarifies the boundaries between different forms of participation in a crime. The Court highlighted how anomalous participation in a crime entails a different degree of responsibility compared to aberratio delicti. This is fundamental for the correct application of sanctions, as the sanctioning treatment must reflect the actual dangerousness of the subject's behavior.

• Distinction between aberratio delicti and anomalous participation.
• Impacts on the criminal liability of participants.
• Need for sanctioning treatment appropriate to the dangerousness of the crime.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 32162 of 2024 represents an important step in legal reflection concerning participation in a crime. The affirmation of the manifest groundlessness of the proposed constitutional legitimacy question puts a stop to extensive interpretations of Article 116 of the Criminal Code, ensuring greater consistency in the application of criminal norms. It is essential for legal professionals to take note of these distinctions to best guide their defense strategies.