Court Ruling on Manslaughter and Narcotics Offenses

Extract

[...] The high court recalls that the state of necessity can only be invoked if the danger is current, or imminent, that is to say real, certain and in the process of realization or is susceptible of being realized in the immediate future threatening directly the person who committed the illegal act. In this case, the Court of Cassation adopts a restrictive conception regarding the nature of the danger. From now on, the necessity of the act is assessed in terms of proportionality. In this case, the Court of Cassation considers that the necessity is characterized when the criminal act is the only means to avoid the danger. [...]

[...] Thus, in the opinion of the investigating chamber, the law came into force subsequently and the payments were made subsequently to that. It also notes that the crime of corruption can be subsequent, provided that all the elements are renewed in the same way and that it is necessary for a donation or benefit to have been proposed so that the person performs or abstains from performing their act or activity or function. It considers that no engagement, promise, or donation was made subsequently to the entry into force of the law. [...]

[...] Two things must be distinguished: either the will remains riveted to the behavior without in any way? The psychological element of murder is turned towards the realization of the result since it is well required by the incriminating text It can be noted that the existence of a qualification conflict or ideal concours. Here, a single fact is susceptible of receiving several different qualifications: murder, voluntary violence leading to death without the intention of giving it, involuntary homicide? The qualification conflict is sometimes only apparent, it can be alternative or incompatible. [...]

[...] Furthermore, the term autrui can designate in the absence of any other specification a collective of employees. This interpretation is in line with the scope that the legislator wanted to give to this incrimination and the criminal chamber cites two opinions that were taken into account by the preparatory works to the 2002 law to support this affirmation. For the Court of Appeal, neither the letter of the text nor the logic of the materiality of the facts requires the leaders to know or identify the victims of the facts. [...]

[...] In the end, it is necessary to deduce from what precedes that engaging in a behavior that is known to generate only psychological or physical harm is to intentionally position oneself on the terrain of violence, and therefore, the qualification retained will be voluntary violence leading to death without the intention of giving it. Absence of desired result The formal offense does not require the achievement of a result. It is directed towards the description of a procedure that can lead to an attack on a social value, but this attack is not required by the incriminating text. In formal offenses, the psychological element cannot be directed towards the result since it is not required by the incrimination. [...]