Commentary on Judgment No. 16318 of 2024: Intentional Homicide and Persistence of the Subjective Element

The judgment No. 16318 of March 13, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial theme in criminal law: the evaluation of the subjective element in the crime of intentional homicide. In particular, the Court had to examine the case of a woman who poured gasoline on her husband, who then died from carbonization. This case raised questions about the persistence of homicidal intent and the validity of the conviction for voluntary homicide.

The Context of the Judgment

The Court annulled the conviction for voluntary homicide with referral, highlighting the necessity to demonstrate that the intent to kill remained constant until the last causal act connected to the victim's death. This aspect is fundamental for the imputation of the crime as intentional, as the subjective element must persist throughout the entire causal chain. The Court reiterated that a mere presumption of homicidal intent is not enough, but a concrete verification is necessary.

Intentional homicide - Concurrence of causes originating from intentional act - Imputation of the event as intentional - Persistence of the subjective element until the end of the causal chain - Necessity - Case. In the context of homicide, where the victim's death derives from a concurrence of causes originating from the agent's intentional act, the imputation of the act as intentional presupposes the verification of the persistence of homicidal intent throughout the course of conduct, until the last act causally linked to the victim's death. (Case concerning a woman who intentionally poured gasoline on her spouse, who then died from carbonization, in which the Court annulled the conviction for voluntary homicide that, despite the objective inadequacy of the act to cause the event by itself and the uncertainty regarding the causes of the fire's ignition, was based on the mere presumption that the homicidal intent had remained firm until the occurrence of the event).

Legal Implications

This judgment offers reflections on the necessary conditions to configure intent in homicide. It is essential that the will to kill is not only present but also demonstrated to have remained constant until the moment of death. The Court, referring to articles of the Penal Code, such as Article 42 and Article 575, fits into a line of jurisprudence that requires a detailed analysis of the circumstances in which the fact occurred, rather than a simple superficial evaluation.

  • Intent must be established in a concrete and not presumptive manner.
  • The persistence of homicidal intent is fundamental for the imputation.
  • Previous judgments provide a basis for understanding the evolution of jurisprudence regarding intent.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16318 of 2024 represents an important step forward in Italian criminal jurisprudence, clarifying that the verification of intent requires a careful and precise analysis of the agent's will. This principle not only protects the rights of the accused but also ensures a more equitable justice based on concrete evidence. It is therefore essential that legal practitioners take this judgment into consideration in their future legal reasoning.

Bianucci Law Firm