[Autom. eng. transl.] In the comment in question, the Supreme Court in the matter of ascertaining the causal link in the criminal trial, reiterates how the counter-factual judgment requires that what happened first be described; only after having ascertained what really happened (explanatory judgment) it is possible to ask what would have been if the dutiful conduct had occurred (predictive judgment). In the case of improper omissive crimes, it can be said that the typical situation, from which the indifferibility of the fulfillment of the obligation to act originates, must be identified in non-doubtful terms; if this were not the case it would not even be possible to hypothesize the typical omission.
|Translated title of the contribution||[Autom. eng. transl.] Court of Cassation, section IV pen., 31 January 2013, n. 23339|
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||RIVISTA ITALIANA DI MEDICINA LEGALE|
|Publication status||Published - 2013|
- REATO OMISSIVO IMPROPRIO - ELEMENTO OGGETTIVO DEL REATO - NESSO DI CAUSALITA' (IN GENERALE) - LEGGI SCIENTIFICHE DI COPERTURA - GIUDIZIO CONTROFATTUALE SUL COMPORTAMENTO ALTERNATIVO LECITO - INSUSSISTENZA