Criminal Lawyers in Intentional Homicide Defense

Intentional homicide typified in Art. 138 CP is the offence sanctioning the voluntary causation of the death of another person, configuring the basic modality of offences against independent human life. The protected legal interest is human life as supreme fundamental good of the legal order, guaranteed in Art. 15 of the Constitution. The typical conduct demands the concurrence of four elements: an action or omission attributable to the subject, the result of another person's death, the causal relationship between action and result, and the animus necandi or intent to kill, whether direct, indirect or eventual. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has developed an extensive doctrinal body on the criteria to prove intent to kill against simple animus laedendi (intent to injure with unsought deadly result).

The methods of commission of homicide are diverse. Homicide with direct first-degree intent demands that the death result be the goal pursued by the author. Direct second-degree intent or of necessary consequences concurs when death, without being the main goal, is a consequence necessarily linked to the author's action. Eventual intent —of maximum evidentiary complexity— is proven when the subject, without directly wanting death, assumes the specific risk of its production as a probable consequence of their action (shooting at the torso at short distance, repeatedly hitting with blunt object on the head, etc.); consolidated Supreme Court case-law has clarified the objective criteria to distinguish eventual intent from conscious negligence: suitability of the means to kill, direction of attack to vital zones, number and entity of impacts, distance and context. Attempt of Art. 16 CP integrates the assumptions where action aimed at killing does not produce death.

The penalties are severe. Consummated homicide carries 10 to 15 years prison (Art. 138.1 CP). When the circumstances of Art. 139 CP concur transforming it into murder (treachery, cruelty, price or reward, facilitating the commission of another crime or avoiding discovery), the penalty rises to 15 to 25 years prison; if two or more of these circumstances concur or the passive subject is minor, vulnerable person or committed after gender violence, revisable permanent prison may apply. The attempt is sanctioned with reduction by one or two degrees (Arts. 62 and 16 CP). Civil liability ex delicto is very high: compensation for moral damages to relatives and close persons under the updated Act 35/2015 scale, loss of earnings, funeral and prior medical treatment expenses if any. Collateral consequences include absolute disqualification during sentence service, criminal record with effects on conditional release, immigration and political rights.

The technical defense in homicide is built on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the degradation to preterintentional homicide or injuries with deadly result: proof that the author intended to injure (animus laedendi) and not to kill (animus necandi); the technical reconstruction of facts, medical-forensic expert evidence on the death mechanism, analysis of weapons or instruments used and assessment of context are decisive. Degradation reduces the penalty from 10-15 years to that of preterintentional homicide or injuries of Art. 147 (1-3 years). Second, self-defense of Art. 20.4 CP, complete or incomplete: prior current illegitimate aggression by who now seeks to be victim, rational necessity of means used and lack of sufficient provocation; full concurrence exempts from penalty, incomplete one allows reduction by up to two degrees. Third, psychic defences: psychic anomaly or alteration (Art. 20.1 CP), transient mental disorder, full intoxication from consumption of alcoholic beverages or drugs (Art. 20.2 CP), insurmountable fear (Art. 20.6 CP); forensic psychiatric expert evidence is decisive. Fourth, mitigators: spontaneous confession, partial damage repair, undue delays and, where appropriate, fit of passion or obfuscation of Art. 21.3 CP.

In current forensic practice, homicide proceedings are tried by the Jury Tribunal of Organic Law 5/1995, which adds a relevant tactical component to the defence: argumentation must be oriented to lay jurors combining technical rigor with expository clarity, and forensic expert evidence (medical, psychiatric, ballistic, criminalistic) takes special prominence. Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency, Criminal Code reforms on revisable permanent prison (Organic Laws 1/2015 and 1/2023) and consolidated Supreme Court case-law on eventual intent and subjective elements configure the current framework. Urgent legal assistance from the moment of detention is crucial: the first statement before the police and investigating court may irreversibly condition the procedure. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience litigating before Provincial Courts, Supreme Court and Jury Tribunals, we undertake integral technical defence from detention to sentence, articulating contradictory expertise, strategy before the jury and reasoned opposition to provisional detention.