Analysis of Judgment No. 29332 of 2024: Abbreviated Procedure and Submission Deadlines

Judgment No. 29332 of March 7, 2024, represents an important point of reference in the landscape of Italian criminal law, particularly regarding the modalities for submitting requests for abbreviated procedures. This decision, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides fundamental clarifications on the relationships between different types of procedures and their respective submission deadlines.

Context of the Judgment

The case analyzed by the Court of Cassation involved the defendant D. P. M. Costantini and the rejection of a request for a conditional abbreviated procedure by the Court of Appeal of Bari. The crucial question was whether it was possible to resubmit a new request for a conditional abbreviated procedure following the rejection of the previous request, due to the need to obtain different evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

Timely request for a conditional abbreviated procedure - Hearing set pursuant to Article 458, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Rejection - "Dry" abbreviated procedure request - Admissibility - Resubmission of the request conditioned on different evidence - Exclusion - Reasons - Case. In the context of immediate judgment, the request for resolution through an abbreviated procedure made at the hearing set pursuant to Article 458, paragraph 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, following the rejection of a previous request for a conditional abbreviated procedure presented, in turn, within the legal deadlines, is timely, as there exists a relationship of genus to species between such procedures. However, the presentation, in this instance, of a new request for resolution through a conditional abbreviated procedure conditioned on the acquisition of different evidence is excluded, as the peremptory deadline of fifteen days provided by Article 458, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands in the way (Case occurring prior to the amendment of Article 458 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Article 27, paragraph 1, letter b, Legislative Decree of October 10, 2022, No. 150).

Legal Implications

The judgment highlights how the request for an abbreviated procedure made at the hearing after the rejection of a conditional request is considered timely, thereby contributing to clarifying the relationship between different trial modalities. However, the Court excluded the possibility of submitting a new conditional request due to the peremptory deadline of fifteen days established by Article 458, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

  • Relationship between procedures: The acceptance of a "dry" abbreviated procedure request is only possible if the previous conditional request was submitted within the deadlines.
  • Time limits: The deadline for submitting a new request is peremptory and does not allow for exceptions.
  • Defensive strategy: Lawyers must carefully plan the timing and modalities of requests to avoid rejections and lose defense opportunities.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Judgment No. 29332 of 2024 offers an important perspective on the management of requests for abbreviated procedures in criminal proceedings. Lawyers and professionals in the field must carefully consider the timing and modalities of submitting requests to ensure effective defense. This decision by the Court of Cassation not only clarifies procedural aspects but also underscores the importance of defensive strategy in a constantly evolving legal context.

Bianucci Law Firm