Commentary on Judgment No. 624 of 2024: Unintentional Homicide and the Role of Predictability

The recent judgment No. 624 of October 23, 2024, issued by the Court of Assizes of Appeal in Bari, represents an important moment of reflection for Italian criminal law, particularly regarding the crime of unintentional homicide. The Court analyzed in detail the subjective element necessary to configure this offense, emphasizing the combination of intent and concrete predictability.

The Subjective Element in Unintentional Homicide

The Court clarified that the psychological element of unintentional homicide arises from the combination of intent, related to the crime of assault or injury, and the concrete predictability of the fatal event. In this specific case, the defendant, I. B., had grabbed his partner by the arm, restricting her movements while she attempted to free herself. This conduct proved lethal, as the woman collided with a glass door, sustaining injuries that led to her death.

Subjective element - Intent mixed with concrete predictability - Case law. The psychological element of the crime of unintentional homicide is a combination of intent, for the crime of assault or injury, and concrete predictability for the fatal event. (In this case, the Court deemed the psychological coefficient of concrete predictability to be present in light of the defendant's conduct, who had grabbed his partner by the arm, limiting her movements while she was trying to break free, near a glass door, which constituted an evident source of danger, against which the woman was about to collide, sustaining injuries that caused her death).

The Predictability of the Fatal Event

A crucial aspect of the ruling is the assessment of the concrete predictability of the fatal event. The Court held that the defendant, acting in a context of high danger, had the responsibility to foresee the consequences of his actions. This principle is in line with European and national jurisprudence, which requires careful consideration of the circumstances in which aggressive conduct develops.

  • The conduct of the defendant must be evaluated in the context of the risk created.
  • The predictability of the event must be analyzed in light of the manner in which the crime was executed.
  • Criminal responsibility is based on the ability to foresee the outcome of one’s actions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 624 of 2024 offers important reflection on unintentional homicide and the subjective element. The distinction between intent and predictability is fundamental for understanding criminal responsibility in situations of violence. It is essential that legal practitioners and citizens understand the significance of these dynamics to prevent tragic events like the one described. Jurisprudence continues to evolve, and cases like this remind us of the importance of a conscious justice system that is attentive to the complexity of human relationships.

Bianucci Law Firm