The prosecution on Wednesday appealed to the High Court of Justice against the sentence handed down to Eduard Kachura, who was convicted of killing 17-year-old Lital Yael Melnick, arguing that he should have been convicted of the more serious offense of reckless killing rather than negligent homicide.
Melnick’s body was found buried in sand in northern Israel about four years ago.
According to the indictment, Melnick met Kachura while receiving treatment at a psychiatric hospital where he was employed as a nurse. Despite a restraining order barring contact, the two entered into a prohibited relationship, with prosecutors describing a dynamic marked by a significant age gap and emotional dependency.
On the night of her death, Kachura took an active role in what was described as a symbolic “burial ceremony,” during which Melnick’s body was covered in sand while a breathing tube was inserted. He then left her at the scene, where she later died.
Just over a month ago, Kachura was sentenced to seven years in prison after being convicted of causing death by negligence. The base offense carries a maximum sentence of three years, with the remainder of the sentence stemming from additional convictions for statutory rape and violating a restraining order.
The offense of reckless killing
In its appeal, the prosecution argues that the district court erred in downgrading the offense and that Kachura’s conduct meets the legal threshold for reckless killing, an offense punishable by up to 12 years in prison.
The appeal contends that Kachura’s active participation in creating a life-threatening situation, his intimate relationship with Melnick, the pronounced power imbalance between them, and his professional background as a psychiatric nurse all establish that he was aware of the real possibility that his actions could result in her death.
“The prosecution maintains that the court erred in concluding that the defendant lacked the requisite mental element for the offense of reckless killing,” the appeal states.
The mental element refers to the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the act - whether they acted intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently - and is a central component in determining criminal liability.
According to the prosecution, multiple warning signs were present that should have alerted Kachura to the danger of his actions, particularly given his familiarity with Melnick’s psychiatric history, emotional fragility, irrational behavior, and dependency on him.
“At the relevant time, the defendant was the only stable adult figure in her life; in many respects, he was her entire world,” the appeal states.
The prosecution further argues that establishing recklessness does not require certainty that death would occur, but only awareness of a non-remote possibility of such an outcome.
“So long as the defendant envisioned the possibility of a fatal result as one that was not merely theoretical,” the appeal argues, “the conduct crosses the boundary from negligent homicide to reckless killing.”
“He knowingly took a disproportionate, potentially fatal risk in the hope that it would not materialize,” prosecutors concluded.