The Mental Element What is required for the consolidation of the offense is awareness of all the elements of the factual basis - the conduct, the circumstances and the possibility of causing the result, as well as recklessness with regard to the consequences. The components of awareness of behavior and circumstances can be proved by the presumption of intentional blindness. The awareness of the possibility of causing the results can be proved by the presumption of awareness. The component of recklessness in relation to the results can be proved by the presumption of the rule of expectations (Gabriel Halevi, Theory of Penal Law, vol. 4, pp. 602-604).
This is what was said in the matter And let it be.:
"In terms of the mental element, awareness of the elements of the factual element is required, as stated in section 20(a) of the Penal Law: 'Awareness of the nature of the act, the existence of the circumstances and the possibility of causing the consequences of the act, which are among the details of the offense.' At the same time, it is necessary to have a state of mind of recklessness (indifference or frivolity) as to the possibility of causing the result (see, for example, Criminal Appeal 371/08 State of Israel v . Bitau, para. 18 (October 27, 2008); Criminal Appeal 8711/09 Yassin v. State of Israel, para. 15 (May 28, 2010); Kedmi, at p. 1294). With regard to proving awareness of the possibility of the realization of the result, it is possible to use the 'presumption of awareness', according to which a person who performs an action is aware of its natural consequences (see, for example, Criminal Appeal 8871/05 Shangloff v. State of Israel, para. 6 (March 12, 2007); Criminal Appeal 10423/07 State of Israel v. Citrin, para. 10 (June 11, 2008); Criminal Appeal 3132/07 in Niagov v. State of Israel, para. 14 (June 14, 2010))."
- In our case, the defendant fired several bullets at the complainant, at close range, using a firearm, when a bullet hit the complainant in the upper abdomen and exited his back. The complainant suffered serious life-threatening injuries and was rushed to the operating room at Wolfson Hospital. Medical documents detailing the injuries and the medical treatment given to the complainant following the shooting were submitted with consent (P/26-P/31).
For example, the medical documents on behalf of the Department of Emergency Medicine at Wolfson Hospital show, among other things, that the complainant was brought on July 20, 2022, by MDA to a shock room after a shooting incident. In his examination, an entry wound was found in the upper abdomen and an exit wound in the back in the left hip area. The complainant was operated on. During the operation, an entrance wound and an exit wound were sutured in the stomach, a partial resection of the liver was performed following a large rupture, and a tear in the spleen and injury to the left kidney were diagnosed. The complainant was transferred to the intensive care unit under anesthesia and on a ventilator and after receiving many blood units. The complainant regained consciousness on July 28, 2022.
- The act of shooting the defendant at the complainant caused the complainant serious life-threatening injuries and permanent mutilation. Thus, the requirement for a causal connection is met.
A person's overt actions are an important source of standing firm on his intentions. When a person causes a certain result, by choice, in circumstances in which he could have achieved another result, the obvious conclusion is that he intended to achieve the result that occurred. This is the case when a person causes a serious result, and so it is when he causes a moderate result, a place that could cause a serious result. It is sufficient in our case that the defendant knew the consequences of his actions in order to obligate him to carry them out, and there is no requirement that the injury was done "intentionally" or in advance planning.