Case Study

Facts:
Scutari Piotr is accused of deliberate murder committed through means dangerous
to life and health of many persons. On 10/07/2011, at 23:50, being on one of the
streets of Mihaileni village, because of the conflict that appeared earlier between
the accused and the victim-T. Albot, P. Scutari carrying a hunting gun, illegaly
detained, shoot from it, as a result T. Albot was seriously injured, wounds which
caused his death. According to the depositions of the accused and the witnesses, in
that night there appeared a conflict between the parties, Mr. Albot (the victim) was
the initator, he violently beated Scutari, he was helped also by A. Scutari. When P.
Scutari escaped from the beatings he ran away, still he was threaten by the others
2 that he will be sexually abused. He met with his brother which brought with him
the gun, A. Scutari and Albot were riding a motorcycle, tracing P. Scutari, the
accused shoot in the direction of the motorcycle and respectively injured T. Albot.
The stories of all the witnesses are similar more or less, with the exception that A.
Scutari states that the victim was shoot not while they were tracing the defendant,
but while they were already returning home and the defendant deliberately waited
for them to take his revenge. P Scutari and his brother state that, the defendant
didnt intend to kill anybody, he jus wanted to scary them with a shot, but because
he didnt know that the gun was loaded and because of the geografical position the
bullet injured T. Albot.
Law:
The crime was qualified according to art. 145, line (2) letter(m) of Criminal Code of
Republic of Moldova
Grounds:
Because on the appeal the prosecution wanted to requalify the crime as a
deprivatin of life by impreudence (art. 149), the Court argued why there was
present the intent. One of the reasons was that the defendant had a reson- the
revenge. Also the theory that he wanted only to scary the 2 other persons is not
according to the other one that he didnt know that the gun was loaded. Aslo all the
evidences from the place of crime, the medical expertise confirm the intentional
character of the actions of P. Scutari, whether direct or indirect. The small distance
of the shot (5m) its a proof that the defendant should be aware of the danger he
created. Also by the expertise it was certified that the external factor could not
affect the direction of the bullet, thus meaning it was directed to the victim. It was
qualified according to letter m), line (2) of art. 145 CC because by his actions the
defendant through his actions put in danger not only the life of T. Albot, but also
the life of A. Scutari, who also was on the motorcycle, so the condition of putting in
danger minimum 2 persons for this letter was respected.
Punishment: 12 years of imprisonment, in an open penitentiary. The court
established a milder punishment than the one mentioned in the art. 145 (2)
because it referred to the aim of the criminal law to reestablish the social equity,
correction of the guilty one and the prevention of the author to commit other
crimes. It also made the individualization of the punishment, thus the defendant

was characterized only in a positive way by the administraion of the Local Council
and by his villagers that came with a request not to punish him harsh. Also the court
states that P. Scutari partially recognized his guilt, and had a good attitude towards
the consequences. Still, the court did not mention that there was applied as a
mitigating circumstance the illegal and imoral actions of the victim (art. 76, g)
CCRM)