Analysis of Judgment No. 26807 of 2023: Prescription and Continuing Offenses

Judgment No. 26807 of March 16, 2023, filed on June 21, 2023, offers an important reflection on the principles governing prescription in relation to offenses attributed to the same defendant under the bond of continuation. The Court of Cassation, presided over by L. R., specified how the autonomy of individual offenses affects the admissibility of appeals, with direct consequences on the possibility of asserting prescription.

The Legal Context of the Judgment

The case developed following a cumulative conviction issued by the Court of Appeal of Florence, in which multiple offenses were attributed to the defendant G. M. D. L. The central issue was whether, in the presence of a conviction for multiple offenses, it was possible to assert prescription for one of them and whether this circumstance could have effects on the other offenses.

Continuing offenses - Prescription for one of them - Objectively cumulative judgment - Inadmissibility of the grounds for appeal related to that offense - Assertability of prescription for other offenses - Exclusion - Reasons. In the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court against a cumulative conviction relating to multiple offenses attributed to the same defendant under the bond of continuation, the autonomy of individual offenses and the procedural relationships concerning each charge prevent the admissibility of the appeal for one of the offenses from establishing a valid procedural relationship for the offenses in relation to which the grounds raised are inadmissible, with the consequence that for these latter offenses, on which a partial judgment has been formed, the possibility of asserting prescription and proceeding to the recalculation of the penalty by eliminating the increase for continuation is excluded.

The Distinction Between Offenses and the Autonomy of Proceedings

The Court reiterated a fundamental principle: the autonomy of individual offenses. This means that, even when the offenses are objectively connected, each charge must be evaluated individually. Consequently, if a ground for appeal is inadmissible for one of the offenses, this does not automatically imply that admissibility can be extended to other associated offenses, on which a judgment has already been formed.

  • Prescription: the possibility of asserting it is excluded for offenses with partial judgments.
  • Continuation: the increase in penalty for continuation cannot be removed if one of the offenses is inadmissible.
  • Jurisprudence: the judgment aligns with significant precedents in this area.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 26807 of 2023 represents an important clarification in the Italian legal landscape regarding prescription and continuing offenses. It emphasizes how the separation and autonomy of offenses prevent the admissibility of an appeal from affecting other offenses, thereby ensuring greater legal certainty. This approach not only protects the rights of defendants but also strengthens the coherence of the legal system as a whole.

Bianucci Law Firm