Necessary Defense or Intentional Murder: The Appellate Court Explained How to Distinguish These Concepts

The Chernivtsi Appellate Court confirmed the legality of the verdict of the Hlybotskyi District Court of Chernivtsi region, which sentenced a man for intentional murder (Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine). The appellate instance did not agree with the defense’s arguments regarding necessary defense and left the legal qualification of the accused’s actions unchanged. This was reported by the court.

Circumstances of the Case and the Defense’s Position

The court of first instance found the accused guilty of intentional murder and sentenced him to 8 years imprisonment. Disagreeing with the verdict, the defense filed an appeal requesting to requalify the accused’s actions as exceeding the limits of necessary defense, arguing that the fatal blow was inflicted during defense against the victim’s attack.

As established by the courts, during joint alcohol consumption between the accused and the victim, a conflict arose, during which the victim received a single stab wound to the chest with a kitchen knife. The penetrating heart injury proved fatal.

The key issue during the appellate review was whether the established circumstances indicated that the accused was in a state of necessary defense. When examining the appeal arguments, the panel of judges noted that the question of the presence of necessary defense cannot be resolved solely based on a single fact — the conflict between the participants, bodily injuries, or the accused’s explanations. The legal assessment must be based on the totality of all established circumstances, not on isolated episodes. This approach was applied by the court of first instance and supported by the appellate court.

Why the Court Refused to Requalify as Necessary Defense

Evaluating the defense’s arguments in case No. 715/2883/25, the panel of judges examined the development of the conflict, the manner of inflicting the fatal wound, the location of the injury, the physical characteristics of the participants, their behavior before, during, and after the conflict, as well as all other evidence in their interrelation.

In this context, the court emphasized that the decisive factor in a person’s behavior should be repelling the attack and defense, not the desire to harm the victim.

Therefore, when the decisive factor in a person’s behavior was not repelling the attack and defense but the desire to cause harm to the victim (to take revenge), such actions by their nature do not constitute necessary defense, acquire an unlawful character, and must be assessed on general grounds.

Among the circumstances decisive for the legal assessment, the appellate court noted that the conflict occurred in two stages, and after the first part, the accused had a real opportunity to end it but voluntarily returned to the victim to continue drinking alcohol together.

The manner of inflicting the fatal wound was also significant. The court concluded that delivering a purposeful blow to a vital organ — the heart — indicated intent to deprive life, not actions characteristic of self-defense.

The panel of judges paid special attention to the accused’s behavior after inflicting the fatal wound. He did not call for medical help or the police, moved the victim’s body to a house, tried to burn the victim’s clothes, and hid in the attic.

Assessing these actions, the appellate court stated that the accused’s behavior immediately after stabbing was clear, consistent, and aimed at concealing evidence of the crime, and therefore cannot be regarded as behavior in a state of fear or confusion, as the defense claimed in the appeal.

Conclusions of the Appellate Court

Under these circumstances, the appellate court found no grounds to requalify the accused’s actions from Part 1, Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional murder) to Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (intentional murder exceeding the limits of necessary defense).

Reviewing the verdict regarding the sentence, the appellate court agreed that the 8-year imprisonment imposed by the district court, to be served in reality, is fair, proportionate to the committed act, and necessary and sufficient for correction and prevention of new crimes.

Thus, the Chernivtsi Appellate Court confirmed that when distinguishing between necessary defense and intentional murder, decisive importance lies not in a single circumstance but in a comprehensive assessment of the entire body of evidence.

It was this comprehensive evaluation of evidence that led the court to conclude the presence of direct intent to kill the victim in the accused’s actions and the absence of grounds for requalification under Article 118 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

The defense’s appeal was dismissed, and the verdict of the Hlybotskyi District Court of Chernivtsi region was left unchanged as lawful, substantiated, and properly motivated.

The ruling of the Chernivtsi Appellate Court came into legal force upon its announcement and may be appealed to the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court within three months.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.