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)