The Court of Cassation's decision on the characterization of homicidal intention in a case involving a deadly weapon and a vital area being targeted.
Extract
[...] Is the sole use of a deadly weapon sufficient to establish a homicidal intent? The use of a knife in a scuffle can result from an instinctive reaction or a desire to intimidate without a real intention to kill. Some attackers may also unintentionally injure a victim in a sudden movement, without true criminal premeditation. By systematically deducing a homicidal intent from the use of a deadly weapon, the Court of Cassation makes the interpretation of the intentional element rigid and limits the assessment of specific circumstances in each case. [...]
[...] The Court of Cassation notes that 'by ruling thus, the investigating chamber did not justify its decision and ignored the requirements of Article 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure'. Article 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial judges to explain in a clear and coherent manner the reasons why they retain or exclude a criminal classification. However, in this case, the contradiction between the material findings and the conclusion drawn on the intent to kill creates an inconsistency that justifies the annulment of the judgment. [...]
[...] In this case, the Court of Cassation had to rule on the characterization of the intent to commit homicide when an individual, armed with a knife, struck a vital area of a victim, leading to their death. A minor, a student in a high school, was a victim of an assault at the end of classes, as a result of which he died due to a wound caused by a knife. The altercation originated from a dispute that had occurred earlier within the high school between the victim and another minor. [...]
[...] The attack on a vital area as an element revealing the criminal intent The second justification of the Court of Cassation is based on the location of the blow inflicted on the victim. The ruling specifies that 'the homicidal intent of the author can be inferred, on the other hand, from the region of the body where the victim was struck.' Finally, striking a vital area constitutes an additional indicator allowing the characterization of the intention to kill. This reasoning is based on a logical presumption: every individual knows that certain parts of the body are essential to survival and that seriously injuring them can lead to death. [...]
[...] An expanded assessment of the homicidal intention by the Court of Cassation The criminal intention is a fundamental element of criminal law, particularly in the case of homicide. Article 221-1 of the Penal Code defines murder as 'the fact of voluntarily giving death to another', which implies a will to kill. However, this homicidal intention is not always explicitly admitted by the author of the facts and must therefore be inferred from the material circumstances. In its decision of 15 March 2017, the Court of Cassation adopts an extensive approach to the intentional element by stating that it can be inferred from the use of a potentially deadly weapon and the area of the body targeted by the aggression The use of a potentially deadly weapon as an index of the intention to kill The Court of Cassation adopts an objective approach to the homicidal intention by stating that 'the homicidal intention of the author can be inferred, on the one hand, from the use of a deadly weapon'. [...]
