"The one who commits one of these shall be guilty of murder and shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and this punishment only;
(1)...
(2) Intentionally causing the death of a person...".
In section 301 of the law in its old version, the term "first intent" was defined as follows:
")A) Regarding the section 300, A person who kills a person will be deemed to have killed intentionally if he decided to kill him, and put him to death in cold blood, Without being preceded by frequent provocation, In circumstances in which he can think and understand the consequences of his actions, And after he prepared himself to kill him or prepared a device with which he killed him
(b)...
(III) In order to prove intent, it is not necessary to show that the defendant was in a certain state of mind for a certain period of time or during a certain period prior to the commission of the offense or that the device with which the offense was committed was prepared at a certain time prior to the act".
If so, in order to prove the mental element of "first intent", it is necessary to point out the existence of three cumulative elements: a decision to kill, preparation and the absence of a cantor, when in the absence of one of the aforementioned conditions, the offense of murder is not consolidated (see, for example, Criminal Appeal 2760/14 Ohayon v. State of Israel [published in Nevo] (7.10.15)).
The totality of the evidence presented in our case and the factual determinations made by me above, lead to the conclusion that the accuser proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, together with a single deliberate, caused the death of the deceased; When it has been proven before us that all the elements of "first intent" were fulfilled in their actions, as will be detailed below.
In a parenthetical article, I will note that throughout the summaries of Defendant 1's counsel, the claim was repeated that prior to the incident, while they were at Defendant 1' s home, the defendants drank vodka and smoked from the drug left by the deceased, and therefore during the incident they were "stoned" in a way that harmed the deceasedin their consciousness and judgment; Although no explicit claim was raised for the restriction of drunkenness, it was implied that the situation in which the defendants were subjected impaired their ability to formulate an intention to kill the deceased. The defendants did not substantiate this claim during the hearing of the evidence, even slightly; Defendant 2 did not raise it at all in his testimony or in his summaries, whereas defendant 1, who said in his various statements only that he was stoned, raised this argument in his testimony only vaguely (only with regard to the failure to call for help and the decision to set the car on fire – p. 404).