Criminal Lawyers for Negligent Injury
Defense against charges of causing injury through professional or ordinary negligence.
Last updated:
Negligent injury (lesiones imprudentes), regulated in Article 152 of the Criminal Code (CP), punishes anyone who, through gross negligence, causes injuries that objectively require medical or surgical treatment beyond a first and single medical examination. It is a negligent offence that differs essentially from intentional injury in the absence of any intent to harm, and it requires a technical analysis of the duty of care breached, the causal link and the foreseeability of the result.
Legal Framework: Article 152 CP
Article 152.1 CP punishes a person who, through gross negligence, causes the injuries of Article 147.1 CP with prison of 3 to 6 months or a fine of 6 to 18 months; the injuries of Article 149 CP (loss or impairment of a principal organ or limb, a sense, impotence, sterility, serious disfigurement, or serious physical or mental illness) with prison of 1 to 3 years; and the injuries of Article 150 CP (loss or impairment of a non-principal organ or limb, disfigurement) with prison of 6 months to 2 years. Article 152.2 CP governs less serious negligence, punished with a fine.
Gross vs Less Serious Negligence
The Criminal Code distinguishes two forms. Gross negligence consists of breaching the most elementary rules of care required of any person in the given situation. Less serious negligence (introduced by Organic Law 1/2015) consists of a breach of due care at an intermediate level between gross negligence (criminal) and slight negligence (non-criminal, dealt with through the civil courts). The boundary between the two is the subject of consolidated Supreme Court case-law, which weighs the seriousness of the breach, the degree of danger created and the surrounding circumstances.
Qualified Professional Negligence
The second paragraph of Article 152.1 CP provides for professional negligence: where the acts are committed through professional negligence, special disqualification from the profession, trade or office is also imposed for a period of 6 months to 4 years. This form is frequently applied in medical and healthcare negligence, in occupational health and safety, in construction, and in the exercise of regulated professions with specific duties of care.
Negligent Injury in the Medical Field
Medical negligence is one of the most frequent areas of application of Article 152 CP. To make out the offence, case-law requires: (a) a manifest breach of the lex artis ad hoc (the technical rules of the relevant medical speciality); (b) an injurious result falling within the statutory categories; (c) a causal link between the breach and the result, with objective imputation of the result to the risk created; and (d) gross negligence that distinguishes criminal negligence from a mere professional error or a complication inherent in the medical act.
Negligent Injury with Motor Vehicles
Negligent injuries involving motor vehicles are the most common in practice. Article 152 bis CP, introduced by Organic Law 2/2019, provides an aggravated subtype for cases of gross negligence with a motor vehicle where one of the circumstances of Article 142 bis CP is present (a high blood-alcohol level, the presence of drugs, a criminally relevant excess of speed, or reckless driving), increasing the penalties and reinforcing the protection of victims.
Mitigating Factors & Concurrence
Concurrence with other offences calls for technical analysis: an ideal concurrence between negligent injury and endangerment offences (Art. 379 CP in accidents involving alcohol; Art. 316 CP in workplace accidents); the mitigating factor of repairing the harm (Art. 21.5 CP), of particular relevance in triggering the civil liability of insurers; and the mitigating factor of undue delay (Art. 21.6 CP). In the medical field, professional civil-liability policies frequently provide cover.
Defence Strategy
We build the defence around: a technical and expert analysis of whether the duty of care was breached; the production of independent expert evidence in medical or technical cases; a discussion of the classification as gross, less serious or slight negligence; analysis of the causal link and the objective imputation of the result; discussion of the professional subtype; coordination with the related civil liability proceedings; assessment of mitigating factors (repair, delay); and the negotiation of pleas with a suspended sentence where appropriate. We act before the Investigating Courts, the Criminal Courts and the Provincial Courts, and, where relevant, before the civil and administrative courts in the related proceedings.
Penalties & Consequences: Negligent Injury
| Type / Scenario | Criminal Penalty |
|---|---|
| Basic negligent injury (Art. 152.1 CP) | Prison of 3-6 months or a fine for injuries (Art. 147.1) that require medical treatment beyond first aid. |
| Serious negligent injury (Arts. 149-150 CP) | Prison of 6 months to 3 years for the loss or impairment of an organ, limb or sense, or serious disfigurement. |
| Professional negligence (Art. 152.1 CP) | Additional special disqualification from the profession, trade or office for 6 months to 4 years. |
* Penalties shown are indicative. The actual penalty depends on case circumstances, applicable mitigating and aggravating factors.
Defense Strategy: Negligent Injury
Breach of Duty of Care
Technical and expert analysis of whether the duty of care was actually breached and to what degree.<h3>The Criminal Proceedings for Negligent Injury: From Investigation to Trial</h3><p>Cases of serious negligent injury are usually handled as preliminary proceedings that lead to the abbreviated procedure, while the less serious injuries of Article 152.2 of the Criminal Code, punishable only by a fine, may follow a simpler track where the classification allows. The investigation phase is decisive: the court gathers the evidence needed to establish how the injury was caused, obtains the forensic report on the healing of the injuries, and determines whether the conduct breached the objective duty of care required. An active defence at this stage shapes the entire outcome that follows.</p><p>During the investigation it is advisable to propose expert evidence for the defence as early as possible, request the complete technical or clinical documentation and, where appropriate, seek a reconstruction of the events. A provisional or final dismissal can be obtained here if the absence of criminally relevant negligence or a break in the chain of causation is established, sparing the strain of a trial. In the abbreviated procedure, the defence brief allows the facts to be denied, the conduct to be challenged as non-punishable slight negligence, or the seriousness of the injury under Articles 147, 149 or 150 to be disputed.</p><p>At trial, the strategy concentrates on cross-examining the experts and on assessing the standard of care. The judgment may be appealed before the Provincial Court, where both the classification of the negligence and the amount of compensation can be reviewed. An appeal to the Supreme Court is reserved for limited, specific grounds, so the appeal before the Provincial Court is usually the defence's true second opportunity to change the outcome of the case.</p><h3>Expert and Counter-Expert Evidence: How the Court Decides</h3><p>In negligent injury cases the expert evidence is the real battleground. The court needs a technical report explaining how the harm occurred and, above all, whether the accused departed from the required standard of care: a biomechanical report in accidents, a risk-prevention expert's opinion in workplace incidents, or a medical-expert report in healthcare cases. Against the prosecution's report, the defence must build a solid counter-expert opinion that challenges the technical premises, the underlying data and the conclusions, rather than merely disagreeing in general terms.</p><p>Case law makes clear that the judge is not bound by an expert opinion: it is assessed under the rules of sound judgment, weighing the expert's qualifications, the internal consistency of the report and how it compares with the rest of the evidence. A well-constructed counter-expert opinion does more than offer an alternative hypothesis; it undermines the reliability of the prosecution's report. The expert's appearance at the hearing, subject to cross-examination, usually carries more weight than an unratified written report.</p><p>The defence must also scrutinise the chain of custody of samples, the integrity of the clinical or technical records and the methodology used. An opinion based on incomplete data, prepared without examining the victim or without access to the relevant protocol, is vulnerable. Where the experts reasonably disagree and a serious technical doubt remains about causation or about the breach of the duty of care, the principle of in dubio pro reo must operate in favour of the accused.</p><h3>Objective Imputation, Lex Artis and Causation in Supreme Court Doctrine</h3><p>A conviction for negligent injury is not satisfied by the mere existence of an injury and a breach of care: the doctrine of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court requires that the result be objectively attributable to that breach. A purely naturalistic causal link is not enough; the conduct must have created a legally disapproved risk, and it must be that risk, and no other, that materialised precisely in the result produced. If the harm would have occurred anyway despite diligent conduct, or stems from an anomalous and unforeseeable causal course, objective imputation fails.</p><p>In professional and healthcare cases, the yardstick is the lex artis ad hoc: the body of technical rules required of an average professional in the specific circumstances. Case law stresses that medicine is an obligation of means and not of result, so an adverse outcome does not in itself imply negligence; what is punishable is departing from the correct standard of conduct. The defence may show that the protocol was followed, that the risk was inherent in a correctly performed procedure, or that the complication was statistically acceptable.</p><p>The Criminal Chamber also weighs the conduct of the victim or of third parties. Contributory fault, the injured party's conscious self-endangerment, or the decisive intervention of a third party may reduce the seriousness of the negligence or, in borderline cases, break the imputation. This doctrine, which can be invoked through reasoned argument without citing specific rulings, gives the defence solid ground to dispute the attribution of the result and the classification between serious negligence, less serious negligence, and mere slight negligence, the latter being non-punishable in criminal law.</p><h3>Civil Liability, the Administration's Subsidiary Route and the Boundary with Other Jurisdictions</h3><p>A conviction for negligent injury carries the civil liability arising from the offence, covering compensation for the injuries, any permanent after-effects, the days of impairment and, where applicable, loss of earnings. In traffic accidents this calculation rests on the road-traffic compensation scale, and both the medical bases and the calculation criteria are worth disputing. Alongside the perpetrator, an insurer often responds as direct civil liable party, and in workplace or healthcare incidents there may be subsidiary civil liable parties, such as the employer, the medical centre or the health Administration itself.</p><p>Where the harm occurs within public healthcare, the injured party may choose the criminal route or claim against the functioning of the public service. If they choose criminal proceedings and do not reserve the civil actions, the criminal court also resolves the compensation; if they waive or reserve those actions, they may later turn to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction against the Administration, or to the civil jurisdiction against private parties. The defence must watch for lis pendens, preliminary questions and the risk of double recovery for the same facts.</p><p>This separation of jurisdictions has practical consequences: a criminal dismissal or acquittal for the absence of criminally relevant negligence does not necessarily close the door to a financial claim, because the standard for civil or administrative liability is different and broader. Anticipating this scenario allows a global negotiation, integrating the repair of the harm into a strategy that can improve the accused's position in the criminal proceedings through the corresponding mitigating circumstance.</p><h3>Limitation Periods, Time Limits and the Lapse of the Criminal Action</h3><p>Limitation periods depend on the penalty laid down for each form of the offence. Serious negligent injury under Article 152.1, with a prison sentence that may reach three years depending on the result under Articles 147, 149 or 150, becomes time-barred within the period set for that penalty range under Article 131 of the Criminal Code. The less serious injuries of Article 152.2, punishable only by a fine, carry a markedly shorter limitation period, and where the conduct is treated as a minor offence the period is shorter still, making the calculation a first-order defensive tool.</p><p>The period runs from when the offence was committed, that is, from the moment of the injurious result, and is interrupted when the proceedings are effectively directed against the person investigated, not by mere empty procedural steps. The defence must examine in detail whether there were stays in the proceedings and whether the acts of accusation meet the requirements set by case law to interrupt the count. A well-founded limitation argument leads to the definitive closure of the case.</p><p>It is important not to confuse the limitation of the offence with the time limits for claiming civil liability, which follow their own rules, or with the time limits of the administrative route against the health Administration, governed by its own regulations. This plurality of deadlines calls for early analysis: letting the criminal period lapse may close the accusation, while reserving the civil actions in time preserves the right to compensation. The date of the event, the date of the healing report and the date of each procedural step must therefore be clearly fixed from the outset.</p><h3>Plea Agreements, Suspension of Sentence and the Line with Neighbouring Offences</h3><p>When the evidence is unfavourable, a plea agreement can be a sensible exit: admitting the facts in exchange for the minimum penalty, often after repairing the harm or depositing the compensation, which triggers the mitigating circumstance of reparation. In serious negligent injury, a prison sentence not exceeding two years, typically for a first offender, may be suspended under Articles 80 and following of the Criminal Code, so that no time is served if the imposed conditions are met. The defence should also negotiate the length of the disqualification in the professional form, given its impact on the right to practise.</p><p>It is essential to distinguish negligent injury from neighbouring offences. The line with intentional injury lies in the subjective element: if intent is present, even indirect intent, the conduct leaves Article 152 and is punished under Articles 147 to 150 with far higher penalties. As against negligent homicide under Article 142, the difference lies in the result: if the victim dies, even where there were initially only injuries, the classification shifts. The lower boundary is slight negligence, non-punishable in criminal terms, which opens only the route of civil liability.</p><p>In cases of serious negligence, Article 152 bis allows the penalty to be raised by one degree where the act is of notorious gravity and injuries under Articles 149 or 150 are caused to a plurality of persons (and by two degrees where the number of injured is very high); this aggravation must be distinguished from the road-safety offences of Articles 379 and following, which may concur where there is excessive speed, alcohol or drugs. Correctly identifying the applicable figure prevents overcharging and allows the defence to steer the case towards the most lenient classification, or towards non-punishability.</p>
Independent Expert Evidence
Producing independent medical or technical expert reports in medical and professional cases.
Classification of Negligence
Arguing for less serious negligence, or non-criminal (civil) negligence, rather than gross negligence.
Causation & Contributory Fault
Challenging the causal link and objective imputation, and establishing the victim's own contributory fault.
Crimes Against Persons in Spain: Homicide, Assault and Threats — Defense Guide
Crimes against persons — homicide (Art. 138 CP), murder (Art. 139 CP), assault/bodily harm (Art. 147-156), and threats (Art. 169-171 CP) — are among the most severely punished offenses in Spain, frequently resulting in substantial prison sentences. A robust forensic and legal defense is critical from the first moments of arrest.
Penalty Table: Crimes Against Persons
| Offense | Article | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Reckless Homicide | Art. 142 | 1 – 4 years |
| Intentional Homicide | Art. 138 | 10 – 15 years |
| Murder (Asesinato) | Art. 139 | 15 – 25 years |
| Aggravated Murder | Art. 140 | Permanent Revisable Prison |
| Minor Assault | Art. 147.2 | Fine 1-3 months |
| Serious Bodily Harm | Art. 149 | 6 – 12 years |
| Criminal Threats | Art. 169 | 1 – 5 years |
Core Defense Strategies
Self-Defense (Art. 20.4 CP)
The three legal requirements are: unlawful aggression, proportional response, and no provocation. Documenting prior threats and injuries is paramount from day one.
Reclassification: Murder → Homicide
The difference between Art. 138 and 139 CP means up to 10 years' additional prison. Defense focuses on disproving premeditation, treachery, or cruelty — the three murder qualifiers.
Psychiatric Defense / Diminished Responsibility
If the accused had a mental disorder at the time of the act, total or partial irresponsibility (Art. 20.1) or diminished responsibility (Art. 21.1) significantly reduce or eliminate the sentence.
Forensic Medical Evidence
Independent autopsy, injury assessment, and toxicology reports often contradict expert testimony submitted by the prosecution. A second forensic medical opinion is always recommended in serious cases.
Why Choose Us?
Need a criminal defense lawyer for this type of offense? Here's how we work:
Do you need specialised legal assistance?
The judicial system is complex. We have the criminal-law specialisation and technical resources required to take on the defence.