Criminal Lawyers in Reckless Homicide

Reckless homicide typified in Art. 142 CP sanctions the causation of another person's death as a consequence of the infringement of the objective duty of care, without direct or eventual intent to kill. It is the culpable modality of offences against life, complementary to intentional homicide of Art. 138. The protected legal interest is human life in its dimension protected against negligent conducts; the disvalue of the conduct lies in the creation of a legally disapproved risk for life that materialises in the deadly result. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law has developed the doctrine on objective imputation, the distinction between serious and less serious recklessness, and the difference between eventual intent (which integrates intentional homicide of Art. 138) and conscious negligence (which integrates reckless homicide).

The modalities of reckless homicide are graduated according to the entity of the infringement of the duty of care. Serious recklessness of Art. 142.1 CP demands the disregard or transgression of the most elementary care rules required, together with at least the representation of the dangerousness of the conduct; typical examples are driving under alcoholic influence with excessive speed, reckless speed in urban zones, serious medical negligence (omission of evident diagnostic tests, gross surgical errors, premature hospital discharge without assessment), or serious omission of occupational risk prevention measures by the employer. Less serious recklessness of Art. 142.2 CP, introduced by Organic Law 1/2015, sanctions relevant infringements of the duty of care not reaching the entity of the serious one: occasional distraction at the wheel with deadly result, significant but not gross medical errors, etc. Professional recklessness adds specific disqualification from professional practice.

The penalties are graduated severely according to the modality. Serious recklessness of Art. 142.1 carries 1 to 4 years prison, susceptible to suspension when it does not exceed 2 years and the conditions of Art. 80 CP concur (first conviction, reparation, absence of records). Less serious recklessness of Art. 142.2 is sanctioned with 3 to 18 months' fine, without prison. Professional recklessness adds special disqualification from the exercise of the profession, trade or office for 3 to 6 years when concurring. Deprivation of the right to drive motor vehicles and mopeds for 1 to 6 years applies when the homicide is committed with vehicle. Civil liability ex delicto reaches very high figures under the updated scale of Act 35/2015 on traffic, analogically applicable to other cases: compensation to relatives for moral damages, loss of earnings, funeral expenses and, where appropriate, prior medical treatment. Insurance coverage (vehicles, professional civil liability, business civil liability) usually assumes these amounts.

The technical defense in reckless homicide is built on four axes consolidated by case-law. First, the proof of due diligence: in traffic accidents, traffic reconstruction expert evidence quantifying speeds, distances, visibility and driver reactions; in medical negligence, medical expert evidence demonstrating compliance with lex artis and clinical protocols; in workplace accidents, documentary audit of the occupational risk prevention plan and the effective training of the deceased worker. Second, the downgrade to less serious recklessness: the difference between serious and less serious is huge (prison vs fine), and reconstruction expert evidence may prove that the infringement of duty, although relevant, does not constitute elementary disregard. Third, the concurrence of faults: the causal contribution of the victim to the result (pedestrian crossing improperly, coetaneous driver in the zone, patient with concealed clinical data) modulates liability and compensation. Fourth, the fortuitous event: when the deadly result derives from unforeseeable circumstances despite the subject's diligent action, there is no crime (without prejudice to eventual objective civil liability in some cases).

In current forensic practice, reckless homicide proceedings concentrate on three typical scenarios: traffic accidents with alcohol, drug consumption, excessive speed or reckless driving (especially intensified in vacation periods); medical negligence in operating rooms, hospital emergencies and obstetric care; and workplace accidents in sectors of higher accident rates (construction, agriculture, industry, transport). Act 35/2015 on traffic and personal damages scale, Act 31/1995 on Occupational Risk Prevention, Act 41/2002 on patient autonomy and Organic Law 1/2025 on Justice Service Efficiency configure the applicable normative framework. Consolidated Supreme Court case-law on lex artis, traffic scale and business prevention duty orients the technical defence. At Alonso Sala, with 15+ years' experience, we articulate specialised defence with traffic reconstruction experts, area medical specialists (surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, anaesthesiology), occupational risk prevention auditors and coordinated strategy with insurers to optimise the integral response, criminal and civil.