The defendant before us committed the severe injury to the complainant while he was aware of the nature of the act, the existence of the circumstances and the possibility of causing the consequences of the act. The defendant's objective attitude toward the result is beyond recklessness as to the possibility of causing the outcome, since the defendant actually wants the complainant's death.
- With regard to the conviction for the offense of causing serious injury under aggravated circumstances and the offense of attempted murder, Article 186 The Criminal Procedure Law [Consolidated Version], 5742-1982 states that "The court may convict a defendant for any of the offenses for which his guilt was revealed from the facts proved before him, but he shall not be punished more than once for the same act".
See in this context Criminal Appeal 1779/22 Moshe v. State of Israel (18.6.2023):
"In light of this section, and as ruled in the Nacht Rule, which was given some 70 years ago and is still in force now, it is possible to convict a number of offenses arising from a single act, when we are dealing with different elements of each of the offenses. However, the same act may not be punished more than once (Criminal Appeal 8457/15 State of Israel v. Wazwaz, para. 85 (November 1, 2018); recent: Miscellaneous Criminal Appeals 2639/23 Peretz v. State of Israel (April 23, 2023) and the references therein; as well as Yoram Rabin and Yaniv Vaki Penal Law, vol. 1, 370-372 (2014)). As for the elements of the offense of attempted murder, I have expanded on this closely... The elements of the offense of aggravated assault are different. This offense is based on section 333 of the law, according to which 'one who unlawfully inflicts serious injury on his friend shall be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.' The existence of the offense is therefore contingent upon the result - 'serious injury'. This term is defined in section 3424 of the Law as 'an injury that amounts to a dangerous injury, or that harms or is likely to seriously or permanently harm the health or comfort of the injured person, or that amounts to permanent or severe injury to one of the external or internal organs, membranes or senses'. In contrast, the existence of an attempted murder offense does not require that any harm be caused to the intended victim, and does not require a result at all. As stated, it is sufficient that the defendant commits an act that deviates from the scope of preparatory actions. Hence, in law the appellant was convicted of these two offenses, which were committed - side by side - in the sequence of violent actions taken by the appellant towards the complainant. On the penal level, 'for a number of offenses that constitute a single act, one penalty shall be imposed, which shall not exceed the maximum penalty for the most serious of the offenses; whereas for a number of offenses that constitute a number of acts, a total penalty will be imposed, consisting of the punishment that will be imposed for each offense' (Criminal Appeal 8686/15 Gribov v. State of Israel, para. 50 (October 3, 2017))."
- Therefore, I found that all the elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the defendant of the offense of causing serious injury under aggravated circumstances.
Carrying and transporting weapons illegally
- Section 144(b) to the Penal Law entitled "Weapons offenses", states as follows:
"A person who purchases, carries or transports a weapon without a legal permission to purchase, carry or transport it shall be sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, but in the case of an essential part of the weapon, he shall be sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and in the case of an immaterial part of the weapon shall be sentenced to three years' imprisonment."