Post by account_disabled on Jan 17, 2024 7:01:53 GMT
The above, however, in the court's opinion is not sufficient to appreciate treachery . The court is based on the "sudden and surprising" way of acting, with the aim of eliminating any possibility of defense", but "the assessment of the aggravating circumstance of treachery cannot be based on the speed and surprise that accompanies the moment in which the two accused take over the weapons”, but rather we must address the criminal act in a global way. “The account of proven facts does not have the descriptive richness necessary to substantiate the first of the aggravations contemplated in 22 of the CP,” affirms the Supreme Court. The magistrates point out, in.
ruling 346/2023, that attention must be paid not so much to the specific homicidal mechanism as to the “total framework of the action . ” Treachery – the choice of a form aimed at eliminating the possibilities of defense – cannot be derived exclusively from the last links of the action. “ It is the homicidal episode, specifically, that should deserve the classification of treacherous .” Nor previous moments in which a homicidal intention had not yet emerged; nor exclusively the moments immediately preceding the last vital breath.” The court further maintains that an ineffective defense “does not amount to the nullification of the possibilities of defense.” Thus, the Supreme Court considers the reason for appeal, emphasizing that " the treachery must be assessed in an ex .
ante trial: placing ourselves at the beginning of the homicidal aggression ." The last knife blow, which after a long series of stab wounds and a close confrontation, is inflicted when the victim has been stripped of the weapon he was also carrying, and is lying on the ground badly injured and no longer able to react, does not make it treacherous. that aggression that began face to face and with both armed contenders . The attack that begins without treachery does not become treacherous as a consequence of the incidents or circumstances that may occur; except when there is a break in continuity, a break between the initial episode and a new attack (surgent treachery); or an unexpected and unforeseen qualitative change », he concludes.
ruling 346/2023, that attention must be paid not so much to the specific homicidal mechanism as to the “total framework of the action . ” Treachery – the choice of a form aimed at eliminating the possibilities of defense – cannot be derived exclusively from the last links of the action. “ It is the homicidal episode, specifically, that should deserve the classification of treacherous .” Nor previous moments in which a homicidal intention had not yet emerged; nor exclusively the moments immediately preceding the last vital breath.” The court further maintains that an ineffective defense “does not amount to the nullification of the possibilities of defense.” Thus, the Supreme Court considers the reason for appeal, emphasizing that " the treachery must be assessed in an ex .
ante trial: placing ourselves at the beginning of the homicidal aggression ." The last knife blow, which after a long series of stab wounds and a close confrontation, is inflicted when the victim has been stripped of the weapon he was also carrying, and is lying on the ground badly injured and no longer able to react, does not make it treacherous. that aggression that began face to face and with both armed contenders . The attack that begins without treachery does not become treacherous as a consequence of the incidents or circumstances that may occur; except when there is a break in continuity, a break between the initial episode and a new attack (surgent treachery); or an unexpected and unforeseen qualitative change », he concludes.