Existence Of The Intention To Kill
YARGITAY Criminal General Assembly, Esas: 2008/1-88, Decision: 2008/184, Date of Decision: 08.07.2008:
“The distinguishing criterion between the crime of effective action and the crime of attempted intentional homicide is based on the difference in the moral element. In the first case, only a lesser consequence (beating and wounding) is desired and not a more severe consequence (death). If the perpetrator wanted the more severe consequence to occur, the intent is considered to be directed towards killing a human being.
Intent, which is the will to commit the act knowing and willingly and which concerns the inner world of the perpetrator, should be determined by taking into consideration the behavior of the perpetrator before, during and after the incident. The existence of the intent to kill is
a) Whether there is an animosity between the perpetrator and the victim based on the pre-incident, which requires killing,
b) Whether the means used in the incident was suitable for killing,
c) Number and severity of blows to the victim,
d) Whether the area of impact is vital,
e) Whether the perpetrator ceased to act spontaneously or because of an obstacle,
f) The behavior towards the victim after the incident, in other words, all the specific features of the incident should be taken into consideration.
When the concrete case is evaluated in the light of these explanations; Since there is no evidence that the defendant, who injured the victim with a single random knife blow at night, in the lively environment of the fight, in a way that did not cause internal organ injury, specifically chose the vital areas and there is no evidence that there is a situation that prevents him from continuing his action, it must be accepted that he acted with the intent to injure in the incident. In this respect, the local court’s judgment of resistance should be reversed.”
YARGITAY Criminal General Assembly Esas: 2003/1-149, Decision: 2003/196, Date of Decision: 24.06.2003:
“In order to determine the nature of the perpetrator’s intentions concerning his inner world, it is possible to draw conclusions based on his behavior reflected in the external world. The behavior of the perpetrator before, during and after the incident should be taken as a measure in determining his intent.
In this case
a) Whether there was an enmity between the perpetrator and the deceased based on the pre-incident, which requires killing,
b) Whether the vehicle used by the perpetrator in the incident was suitable for killing,
c) Number and intensity of pulses in the scale,
d) The vital importance of the area of impact,
e) Whether the perpetrator ceased to act spontaneously or under the influence of an obstacle,
f) The manner in which the perpetrator used the vehicle,
g) After the incident, the perpetrator’s behavior towards the deceased (or the victim) should be observed and his/her intention should be revealed.
In the concrete case, there was no enmity between the parties that would require killing. After the attack against him, the defendant was contented with only one knife blow to both participants in the lively environment of the fight, did not continue his knife attack even though there was no reason to prevent it, and left the scene when witness Kazım heard about the incident and came from his field 400 meters away. In this respect, the Local Court’s resisting verdict, which characterizes the actions of the defendant, who is understood to have acted with the intent to injure, as a complete attempt to kill, is inaccurate and should be reversed.” 04.12.2021