Personal Favoritism and Permanent Crimes: Analysis of Judgment No. 14961 of 2024

The recent judgment No. 14961 of March 27, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has addressed a crucial theme in criminal law: the configurability of the crime of personal favoritism in relation to permanent crimes. With this decision, the Court reaffirmed fundamental principles regarding the distinction between complicity and favoritism, clarifying the legal implications of this distinction.

The Context of the Judgment

In the specific case, the defendant M. M. was accused of personal favoritism in relation to a crime of cultivation and possession of narcotic substances. The Court of Appeal of Cagliari had rejected the request for the configurability of favoritism, arguing that any assistance provided during the commission of a permanent crime translates into complicity in the crime itself.

Analysis of the Maxim

Configurability in relation to a permanent crime - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. The crime of personal favoritism is not configurable during the commission of a permanent crime, as any facilitation of the perpetrator carried out during the commission of their conduct results, unless otherwise provided, in complicity, at least moral, in the crime attributed to them. (Case in which the Court correctly qualified the conduct of the defendant in terms of complicity in the crime of cultivation and possession of narcotic substances).

This maxim emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the different forms of criminal liability. In particular, the Court clarified that the assistance provided to a subject who is committing a permanent crime cannot be considered favoritism but rather complicity, even moral, in the crime itself. In other words, those who facilitate a permanent crime do not commit an act of favoritism but actively participate in the crime in question.

Legal and Jurisprudential References

The judgment is based on provisions of the Penal Code, particularly Articles 378 and 110. These articles define personal favoritism and complicity in the crime, respectively. The Court referred to previous maxims that confirm its position, thus creating a coherent legal framework. Among the cited precedents, the following can be mentioned:

  • Maxim No. 4927 of 2004
  • Maxim No. 12915 of 2006
  • Maxim No. 282 of 2022

These references demonstrate how jurisprudence has evolved over time while maintaining a fundamental consistency in the definition of crimes and criminal liability.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 14961 of 2024 represents an important step forward in clarifying the dynamics between favoritism and complicity in crime, particularly regarding permanent crimes. The distinction between these two legal figures is essential to understanding criminal responsibilities and the legal consequences of assistance actions. The Court of Cassation, with this decision, has provided an important clarification that may influence future cases in the criminal field, contributing to a better application of justice.

Bianucci Law Firm