Imputazioni alternative, imputazioni “ibride” e abnormità al vaglio della Suprema Corte

Drawing on a ruling by the Sixth Chamber of the Supreme Court, this article analyzes, in their mutual implications, several issues lacking specific statutory regulation: abnormality and “alternative” charges, up to their “degeneration” represented by “hybrid” charges. From this perspective, the paper first criticizes the jurisprudential orientation that favors alternative formulations of charges, overlooking the harm done to the defense by formulating the accusation according to paradigms that run counter to the canons of clarity and precision imposed by the legislature. At the same time, it highlights the critical issues
underlying the expansion of the boundaries of abnormality, erroneously conceived by certain jurisprudence as a miraculous remedy for promptly removing judicial orders that have erroneously found nonexistent nullities. The analytical levels intersect, in particular, by examining the (possible) pathologies of the provisions by which the nullity of the documents containing the accusation is declared, in light of the amendments introduced by the Cartabia Reform to art. 423, paragraph 1-bis and art. 554-bis, paragraph 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure