Man grabbed a knife after a quarrel and injured an acquaintance — however, the appellate court did not establish intent to kill

A domestic conflict involving a knife does not always mean an attempted murder. The Chernivtsi Appellate Court concluded that in this particular case, the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had direct intent to take another person’s life.

The court changed the verdict of the first instance, which sentenced the man to seven years in prison for an attempted intentional murder. The appellate court requalified the actions as intentional minor bodily injury causing a short-term health disorder, sentenced him to two years of restricted liberty, and, taking into account the time spent in custody, released him from custody in the courtroom.

Circumstances of the case

As established in case 723/2831/25, the incident occurred on May 11, 2025, at the defendant’s residence. The man was drinking alcoholic beverages with the victim. During a sudden quarrel that arose over a trivial reason, a conflict occurred between them.

According to the prosecution, the man took a kitchen knife and inflicted several blows to the victim’s head and neck, intending to take his life. The victim managed to escape from the house, after which passersby called an ambulance. He was hospitalized at the Chernivtsi Emergency Hospital.

The Storozhynets District Court of Chernivtsi region found the man guilty of attempted intentional murder and sentenced him to seven years in prison.

Defense position

The defense attorney appealed the verdict, arguing that the conclusion about the presence of direct intent to kill does not correspond to the factual circumstances of the criminal proceedings.

According to the defense, the first instance court incorrectly assessed the evidence, particularly the forensic medical examination report. The defense emphasized that the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim does not indicate an intent to kill.

Specifically, the victim had no skull bone fractures, penetrating wounds, or damage to vital vessels. The defense also pointed out that some blows were inflicted with the knife handle, not the blade.

The defense requested to reclassify the defendant’s actions from Part 3 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.

Appellate court conclusions

After reviewing the case materials, the panel of judges noted that to qualify the actions as attempted intentional murder, it is necessary to prove direct intent to kill.

According to Article 15 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, an attempt to commit a criminal offense is possible only with direct intent. A person must be aware of the socially dangerous nature of their actions, foresee the specific consequence in the form of the victim’s death, and desire its occurrence.

The appellate court noted that the first instance verdict stated that the defendant was aware of the illegality of his actions, foresaw the possibility of the victim’s death, but did not desire it, although he admitted such a consequence.

The panel of judges indicated that such a characterization of the mental attitude toward the consequences indicates indirect intent. At the same time, an attempt of intentional murder with indirect intent is impossible.

Assessment of evidence and nature of injuries

The appellate court took into account that the conflict between the men arose suddenly during joint alcohol consumption. Before that, there were no prolonged conflicts or hostile relations between them.

During the trial, the defendant denied having the intent to kill the victim and explained that the incident happened suddenly. The victim also reported that there had been no previous disputes or fights between them.

According to the forensic medical examination, the victim had abrasions, a contusion wound in the parieto-occipital area, a concussion, as well as four stab and cut wounds in the neck, forehead, temple, and finger of the hand. All injuries were classified as minor bodily injuries causing a short-term health disorder.

The court noted that the contusion wound on the head and concussion correspond with the explanations about blows inflicted with the knife handle. At the same time, no skull fractures, penetrating wounds, or artery damage were found that could indicate intent to kill.

The panel of judges concluded that the nature, location, and mechanism of the injuries do not confirm the presence of direct intent to kill. Therefore, the legal assessment of the man’s actions should be made considering the actual harm caused to the victim’s health.

Appellate court decision

The Chernivtsi Appellate Court satisfied the defense’s appeal and changed the first instance court’s verdict.

The man’s actions were reclassified from Part 3 of Article 15, Part 1 of Article 115 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to Part 2 of Article 125 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine — intentional minor bodily injury causing a short-term health disorder.

The court sentenced him to two years of restricted liberty. However, since the man had been in custody since May 12, 2025, the court applied the rule of counting pre-trial detention: one day in custody counts as two days of restricted liberty.

Accordingly, the appellate court recognized the sentence as fully served and ordered the immediate release of the man from custody.

The appellate court’s ruling took legal effect upon announcement and may be appealed in cassation to the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court within three months.

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