Facts
On November 14, 1991, J. was convicted by the Police Court of the Canton of Geneva to a sentence of 5 months' imprisonment, with a suspended sentence for 5 years, for simple bodily harm (Art. 123 CC). On appeal, the sentence was reduced to 3 months' imprisonment (with a suspended sentence). J. appealed to the Federal Tribunal, claiming that he was only guilty of battery under Art. 126 CC. He primarily requests acquittal, alternatively the remand of the case to the cantonal authority to be convicted only for battery.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the cantonal authority did not abuse its discretion in qualifying the physical injuries as simple bodily harm. Although the assessment of the pain was made without a direct witness, the traces observed the next day by the doctor and life experience have led to the conclusion that the blows caused non-negligible pain, even if the skin of a child of this age is more delicate.
However, on a subjective level, the Federal Tribunal considers that the cantonal authority did not properly assess the issue of conditional intent. The mere finding that blows to a two-and-a-half-year-old child cannot be inflicted without the intention to strike is not sufficient to establish conditional intent. Conditional intent requires that the perpetrator has envisaged the harmful result and has accommodated…