Conviction for attempted homicide by stabbing set aside

The injured party in the case had been subjected to violence in connection with the collection of a drug debt, including multiple stab wounds. One of the wounds penetrated a couple of centimetres into the chest cavity and resulted in a punctured lung. The injured party was admitted to hospital within a few hours, and the injury was treated. Without treatment, the injury would have been life‑threatening. In the District Court and the Court of Appeal, the defendant was convicted in accordance with the indictment for attempted homicide. The appeal to the Supreme Court concerned the application of the law and the reasoning relating to the defendant’s intent as to causing death.

The Supreme Court based its assessment on the principles governing intent set out in HR-2022-1323-A. Where spontaneous violence is involved and the perpetrator does not consciously reflect on the consequences, intent may be established from the common knowledge that death will certainly or most probably result, if there are no indications that the perpetrator did lack such knowledge. At the same time, the Supreme Court emphasised that reliance on common knowledge entails certain pitfalls. To mitigate these, it stressed that the specific stab wound must be assessed in the light of what is commonly known. Such knowledge can only be relied on where the act is so dangerous that it is clear any ordinarily equipped person would understand that it is likely to result in death. The Supreme Court also underlined that the assessment of whether the perpetrator may nonetheless have held a different understanding must not be unduly narrow.

The Court of Appeal had proceeded on the basis that it is common knowledge that stabbing a person in the chest with a large kitchen knife with some force will most probably result in death. The Supreme Court found that this assessment was too broad and insufficiently tied to the specific stab wound. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had stated that there were no indications that the accused lacked such knowledge. However, this assessment was too narrow. The reasoning was therefore insufficient, and the conviction for attempted murder was set aside.

The judgment provides guidance on the content of the requirement of intent in cases of attempted homicide.

Read the judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Area of law: Criminal law, the requirement of intent, sections 16 and 22 of the Penal Code

Key paragraphs: 21–30

Justices: Falkanger, Falch, Sæther, Hellerslia, Sivertsen