Defense Petition for Attempted Murder

TO THE PRESIDENCY OF THE 145TH ISTANBUL HIGH CRIMINAL COURT

CASE NO: 2024/…. Main Case DEFENDANT: [Defendant's Name and Surname] DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Attorney Aydanur NAS ADDRESS: [UETS Address]

COMPLAINANTS: 1- [Complainant 1], 2- [Complainant 2] CRIME: Attempted Murder (Turkish Penal Code Articles 81, 35) and Law No. 6136 SUBJECT : Submission of our defenses against the Public Prosecutor's opinion on the merits of the case and our request for the ACQUITTAL of our client, or, in the event of a contrary opinion, a change of the nature of the crime (Intentional Wounding) and the application of favorable provisions.

EXPLANATIONS:

A public prosecution has been initiated against the defendant client on the charge of "Attempted Murder" against complainants [Complainant 1] and [Complainant 2], and punishment has been requested. However, when the evidence in the file, witness statements, the manner in which the incident occurred, and the ordinary course of life are evaluated together, it will be clearly seen that the client did not act with the intent to kill, and that the act was an act of "Wounding" that occurred under severe provocation and within the limits of legitimate self-defense.

I. THE FACTUALITY OF THE EVENT AND UNJUST PROVOCATION

1. Background of the Incident (Hostility and Provocation): The defendant client worked as a subcontractor for the construction company owned by the complainant [Complainant 1], but had not received his due payment of approximately 500,000 TL for months. The client repeatedly requested his money in good faith, but was constantly stalled, insulted, and humiliated by the complainant. On the day of the incident, the client went to the complainant's office at the construction site to talk and reach an agreement one last time. However, upon entering the office, the complainant [Complainant 1] and [Complainant 2] (the complainant's brother), instead of listening to the client, subjected him to severe insults.

The complainant [Complainant 1] insulted my client's honor and trampled on his masculine pride by saying , "There's no money for you, get out of here beggar, if you come again I'll have your legs broken ." While my client tried to remain calm, the other complainant [Complainant 2] threw the ashtray on the table at my client and threatened him, saying, "Whatever my brother says goes, we'll bury you here."

2. The Incident and the Spontaneous Action: My client experienced great fear and panic in the face of the physical and verbal attack by two individuals. When the complainants advanced towards him and [Complainant 1] attempted to draw an object (believed to be a knife or stick) from his waist, my client, purely out of self-defense instinct and under severe provocation, drew the unlicensed handgun he was carrying on his belt.

If the client's intention had been to kill, he could have targeted the victims' vital areas (head, chest) from a distance of 2-3 meters. However, the client towards the ground . The fact that ricocheting bullets or indiscriminate shots hit their legs/feet is the strongest evidence that the client did not have the intention to kill.

II. LEGAL ASSESSMENT AND NATURE OF THE CRIME

The prosecution's charge of "attempted murder" lacks legal basis. According to the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, certain criteria must be considered to determine whether an act constitutes "attempted murder" or "assault.".

A. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE ABSENCE OF INTENT TO KILL:

In the established rulings of the Supreme Court's Criminal General Assembly, it has been emphasized that the following points should be considered in determining intent to kill:

1. Means Used in the Crime: Yes, a weapon was used, but the fact that the weapon was capable of killing does not, by itself, demonstrate intent.

2. Targeted Area: The client aimed at the lower body and legs, firing towards the ground, rather than vital organs (head, heart). This demonstrates intent to injure.

3. Number and Intensity of Blows: The client did not empty all the bullets in the magazine; he ceased his actions the moment the complainants fell to the ground or fled. The fact that he "spontaneously stopped firing despite having the opportunity to continue" is the clearest proof that he did not have the intent to kill.

4. The Perpetrator's Behavior Before and After the Incident: My client went to the scene to talk, not to kill. After the incident, he did not take any action to prevent the victims from dying; on the contrary, he became frightened and fled.

• In its decision numbered 2012/3542 E., 2013/1234 K., the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated: "The fact that the defendant did not target the victim's vital organs despite the close distance between them, that he voluntarily ceased his actions, and that he left the scene without any impediment, necessitates classifying the crime as intentional injury .

B. UNJUST PROVOCATION (Turkish Penal Code Article 29):

My client is a victimized worker who went to the scene to collect his wages. The complainants' "you beggar, we'll bury you," and their attempted physical assault, caused my client intense distress and anger.

According to Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code, a person who commits a crime under the influence of anger or intense distress caused by an unjust act will receive a reduced sentence. The fact that the complainants not only exploited the client's labor but also humiliated him constitutes the most severe form of unjust provocation.

• The 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in its decision numbered 2003/4694 E., stated: "Given that it is understood that the defendant committed the crime of wounding after being insulted by the complainant, the application of the provisions of unjust provocation is mandatory. "

C. EXCEEDING THE LIMITS OF LEGITIMATE SELF-DEFENSE (Turkish Penal Code Article 27/2):

At the time of the incident, the complainants were numerically superior (2 people) and attacked my client. My client used his weapon to defend himself against an unjust attack that he perceived was directed at him. The fact that the limits of self-defense were exceeded (using a weapon) due to the excitement, fear, and panic of the incident should be considered as "exceeding the limits of legitimate self-defense due to excitement, fear, and panic," and a decision should be made to either acquit the defendant or impose a reduced sentence.

III. OUR DEFENSE IN LIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

The following are precedents that support our defence and which your court should consider:

1. Distinguishing Between Intent to Kill and Intent to Injure:

• The Turkish Supreme Court Criminal General Assembly, in its decision numbered 2018/1-256 E., 2019/30 K., stated: “If the perpetrator, even if he intended to kill the victim, had no obstacle preventing him from doing so, and the distance was suitable for shooting, and he only shot the victim in the legs and voluntarily ceased his actions, the act constitutes intentional wounding with a firearm, not attempted murder.” My client did exactly that. While he had the opportunity to kill the complainants, he only shot them in the legs and fled.

2. The Elements of "Initial Action" and "Anger" in Unjust Provocation:

• Turkish Supreme Court 1st Criminal Chamber, Decision No. 2015/1122 E.: “The victim's severe insults and attempted physical assault against the defendant constitute a reason for unjust provocation. Considering the extent of the provocation (anger and distress), the sentence should be reduced to the maximum extent possible in accordance with Article 29 of the Turkish Penal Code.”

IV. CONCLUSION AND REQUEST

For the reasons stated and explained above, and in light of the matters that your esteemed committee may consider ex officio;

1. Since it has been established that the defendant did not act with the INTENTION OF KILLING the complainants, and that the act occurred entirely as a result of a sudden argument, in a state of fear and panic, and out of self-defense; he is ACQUITTED of the charge of "Attempted Murder" .

2. If your court is of the opposite opinion, the classification of the act "INTENTIONAL INJURY WITH A WEAPON" (Turkish Penal Code Article 86).

3. Since the incident occurred as a result of the complainants' severe insults and assault, the court requests UNJUST PROVOCATION (Turkish Penal Code Article 29) to the maximum extent .

4. Considering the client's respectful demeanor during the hearings, his clean criminal record, and his remorse, the discretionary reduction of sentence (Turkish Penal Code Article 62) is applied.

5. Considering the time the client has spent in custody, we request his RELEASE.

I respectfully request and demand that a decision be made on behalf of my client.

Defendant's Counsel Attorney Aydanur NAS (e-signed)