Cassazione Penale - Sentenza n. 00123/2026

Key Facts

Issues

• The court addressed whether the g.i.p.'s assertion of dolo eventuale (eventual intent) in the attempted murder charge was legally valid, referencing consolidated jurisprudence that deems dolo eventuale incompatible with attempted murder. The decision clarifies that the correct legal framework requires dolo diretto (direct intent) in its alternative form for such cases.
• The second issue concerned the g.i.p.'s assessment of the victim's position (seated in a car) and the bullet trajectory. The defense argued the 'height of a person' standard was inapplicable due to the victim's posture and the nature of the wound, citing medical reports indicating a glass shard rather than a bullet fragment. The court deemed these factual disputes outside the cassation review scope.
• The fourth issue questioned the g.i.p.'s failure to consider the suspect's claim that the weapon was stolen rather than illegally possessed. The court ruled that this factual determination did not implicate legal errors reviewable in a cassation appeal.
• The fifth issue challenged the g.i.p.'s motivation for applying pre-trial detention, arguing it lacked logical coherence. The court affirmed that cassation appeals cannot address factual reassessments of coercive measures, even if the motivation appears flawed, as such matters require a merits review.
• The third issue focused on the g.i.p.'s failure to address the suspect's statements regarding the incident, including claims of extorsion and the victim's actions to erase evidence. The court concluded this did not constitute a legal violation but rather a factual assessment beyond its jurisdiction to review.

Holdings

• The court found the second, third, and fourth motives inadmissible, as they pertain to factual disputes and misinterpretations of evidence that cannot be reviewed in a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
• The fifth motive was also deemed inadmissible, as it challenges the assessment of precautionary measures without addressing legal errors, which falls outside the jurisdiction of direct appeals.
• The court rejected the first motive of the appeal, acknowledging an error in the original decision's classification of the psychological element (dolo eventuale instead of dolo diretto) but affirming the factual reconstruction supports the correct legal conclusion of attempted murder.

Remedies

• The court condemns the appellant to pay the court costs associated with the proceedings.
• The court dismisses the appeal as unfounded and condemns the appellant to pay the court costs.

Legal Principles

• The court applied the principle that attempted murder (tentato omicidio) requires a direct intent (dolo diretto), not an eventual intent (dolo eventuale). The judge's reconstruction of facts, including the accused firing at 'altezza uomo' (height of a person), supported the conclusion that the accused accepted the risk of causing death, aligning with the dolo diretto doctrine. The court acknowledged an error in referencing dolo eventuale but held this inessential as the factual basis justified the correct legal conclusion.
• The court emphasized that cassation review (ricorso per cassazione) in criminal cases is limited to legal errors and cannot re-evaluate factual findings. The judge's motivation, while containing a doctrinal inaccuracy (dolo eventuale compatibility), was sufficient as the factual reconstruction and legal reasoning supported the provisional charge of attempted murder and the application of pre-trial detention.

Precedent Name

• Sez. 6, n. 44996 del 13/11/2008
• Sez. 6, n. 14342 del 20/3/2012
• Sez. U, n. 25080 del 28/5/2003
• Sez. 1, n. 44995 del 14/11/2007
• Sez. 1, n. 25114 del 31/3/2010
• Sez. 1, n. 9663 del 3/10/2013
• Sez. 4, n. 45611 del 28/10/2021
• Sez. 1, n. 43250 del 13/4/2018
• Sez. 2, n. 27866 del 17/6/2019
• Sez. U, n. 11 del 22/3/2000
• Sez. 6, n. 47676 dell'11/10/2023
• Sez. 4, n. 26992 del 29/5/2013
• Sez. 1, n. 11928 del 29/11/2018

Cited Statute

• Codice di Procedura Penale
• Costituzione
• Codice Penale

Judge Name

• Valiante Paolo
• De Marzo Giuseppe

Passage Text

• Ne deriva, pertanto, l'inammissibilità del secondo, del terzo e del quarto motivo di ricorso.
• Non può annettersi altro significato alla parte dell'ordinanza in cui si richiama la circostanza che, dopo aver già esploso alcuni colpi d'arma da fuoco di tipo prevalentemente intimidatorio senza raggiungere lo scopo, Zizzo abbia infine puntato l'arma con il braccio teso ad altezza d'uomo, a distanza estremamente ravvicinata dalla vittima, la quale non a caso è stata raggiunta dal colpo all'avambraccio prima di riuscire ad allontanarsi definitivamente alla guida della propria auto. E ciò, peraltro, dopo che il provvedimento stesso aveva riportato ampi stralci dell'interrogatorio dell'arrestato, il quale, pur negando la volontà omicidiaria, aveva riconosciuto di avere sparato ad altezza d'uomo ad un metro di distanza da Circelli.