News Supreme Court rulings March 2015

Supreme Court: self-defense should not only be inferred. It must be adequately demonstrated.
A recent Supreme Court decision (Supreme Criminal Cassation, No. 9693/2015) clarified that in the case where the wife kicks her husband in the “zebedee” she risks a personal injury conviction if she does not prove the existence of the justification of self-defense. According to the Justices, in fact, the woman cannot simply infer that she acted out of the need to defend herself from her husband’s aggressive behavior but must specify the circumstances inherent in the event as well as indicate from what impending danger she had to defend herself.

Supreme Court dictates rules for dog “needs.”
The Supreme Court justices in ruling no. 7082/2015 acquitted a man of charges of defacing property for letting his dog urinate over the main facade of a historic building in downtown Florence.
The Supreme Court justified the decision by noting that no matter how well-behaved the pet may have been, the moment when the pet decides to perform its physiological needs is sometimes difficult to predict. And this is because it is an instinct that cannot otherwise be directed and in any case cannot otherwise be suppressed through the performance of actions toward the animal that would be on the borderline of mistreatment.
The Ermellini also appreciated the circumstance that the master had equipped himself with a water bottle, with which the “misdeed” was promptly washed away. Situation this was held by the Supreme Court to be valid to exclude the even generic intent that characterizes the crime of defacement under Article 639(2) of the Criminal Code: the restorative action proved the lack of intent to cause damage.

Supreme Court: Leaving the house with a hatchet in hand is an unconscionable but not dangerous action.
In a recent case dealt with, the Supreme Court (Judgment No. 6261/2015) found a person who, exasperated by the noise of a refrigerated truck parked under his home, had come down from his house armed with a hatchet not guilty of unlawful carrying of an offensive instrument. The man, sued by the truck owner for severing the truck’s power cable had been acquitted.
The court while calling the man’s reaction inconsolable, did not consider it dangerous. In addition, he noted that the tool used, a small axe stored in the garage, could not be considered an instrument of offense because the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is a commonly used tool, especially in mountainous areas and, usually, used for cutting timber.