Excerpt
Judgment 876/2025 of the Spanish Supreme Court offers a particularly significant elaboration of the assessment of objective attribution of the result in homicide cases. The debate does not concern the existence of intent (dolus) or the objective and subjective dangerousness of the assault, elements that are not disputed. The central issue lies in determining whether the death may be legally attributed to the perpetrator when, following the assault, an autonomous and conscious act of the victim intervenes, introducing a different causal course. The judgment therefore focuses on the analysis of the principle of the victim’s self-responsibility and its impact on the interruption of the chain of objective attribution.
The Pre-existing Jurisprudential Framework
Before addressing the core of the case, STS 876/2025 situates itself within a clearly consolidated line of case law. Judgments such as STS 1345/2011, STS 452/2017 and STS 228/2024 have consistently stressed that natural causation constitutes a necessary but insufficient condition for attributing a result, emphasizing the normative nature of the attribution assessment.
Along the same lines, STS 1253/2005 underscores that objective attribution requires the result to constitute the materialization of the risk created by the perpetrator, making it necessary to exclude cases in which the harm derives from autonomous risks introduced by the victim or other independent factors. For its part, STS 505/2021 expressly addresses the issue of concurrent risks, affirming that only the result which represents the concretization of the risk generated by the agent should be attributed, and not one arising from a different or supervening risk.
Natural Causation and the Normative Assessment of Objective Attribution
Consistent with this prior doctrine, the Supreme Court reaffirms the distinction between natural causation and legal causation. The physical-natural connection between the assault and the death is not sufficient for the legal attribution of the result; a normative assessment is required to determine whether the death constitutes the realization of the prohibited risk generated by the perpetrator.
This approach prevents the confusion of the material causal sequence with criminal liability and ensures that liability is grounded in criteria of objective attribution, already reinforced in decisions such as STS 1345/2011, 452/2017 and 228/2024.
The Risk Created by the Perpetrator and Its Correspondence with the Result
STS 876/2025 acknowledges that the accused created a serious and typically homicidal risk. However, it insists that objective attribution requires more: namely, that the result produced be the concretization of the risk created, excluding the possibility that it derives from a different or autonomous risk.
This approach aligns with the criteria set out in judgments such as STS 505/2021, which addresses the concept of concurrent risks, as well as with the doctrine of STS 1253/2005 concerning self-endangerment.
The Victim’s Autonomous Conduct as an Independent Causal Course
The decisive element of the case is the victim’s voluntary refusal to receive immediate medical attention. According to the judgment, this refusal was not the result of confusion or incapacity, but rather an informed and autonomous decision. Expert evidence indicates that early treatment could have prevented death or increased the chances of survival, thereby introducing a concurrent risk which, according to the Chamber, ultimately displaces the risk initially generated by the perpetrator.
In light of the principle of self-responsibility, the Court concludes that the victim introduced a decisive and autonomous risk into the causal sequence, thereby interrupting the nexus that might have connected the aggressor’s initial conduct with the fatal outcome.
Interruption of the Chain of Objective Attribution and Legal Consequences
The Chamber criticizes the fact that the Jury Court approached the issue from a purely naturalistic perspective, whereas objective attribution constitutes a legal assessment reserved to judicial authority. After carrying out the appropriate normative evaluation, the Supreme Court concludes that the death cannot be attributed to the accused, not due to insufficient evidence, but for strictly dogmatic reasons: the fatal result does not constitute the realization of the prohibited risk created by the perpetrator, but rather a different risk assumed by the victim.
This leads to the exclusion of consummated homicide, with only attempted homicide remaining, since the accused acted with intent and carried out acts suitable for causing death.
Conclusion
STS 876/2025 constitutes a paradigmatic example of the application of the doctrine of objective attribution of the result. Drawing on a consolidated body of case law reflected in STS 1345/2011, 452/2017, 228/2024, 1253/2005 and 505/2021, the Supreme Court clearly distinguishes between natural causation and normative attribution, delineates the risk created by the perpetrator, and assesses the victim’s autonomous conduct as an independent causal factor. The ruling reaffirms the centrality of the principle of culpability and the prohibition of liability for the acts of others, consolidating itself as an essential reference for interpreting Article 138 of the Spanish Criminal Code in cases involving concurrent risks and self-endangerment.
The article is now available on Lawyerpress. Feel free to visit it for further details and follow the full discussion on this case: https://n9.cl/klhvn
