Limitele legitimei apărări în cazul unui atac armat
At 23:30, Vasile, aged 62, was walking home through a park in Chișinău. Two men approached him. One, later identified as Mihai, held a knife and demanded his wallet. Vasile sprayed Mihai in the face with pepper spray. Mihai staggered but remained standing about two metres away, still holding the knife. Vasile grabbed Mihai's knife hand, took the knife, and stabbed Mihai once in the abdomen. Mihai fell to the ground. The second attacker ran away. Vasile then stabbed Mihai a second time in the chest. Mihai died. Vasile called the police and waited. The prosecution charges Vasile with intentional homicide committed by exceeding the limits of legitimate defence. The defence argues that Vasile acted in legitimate defence and was in a state of fear.
1. What are the conditions of legitimate defence in Moldovan criminal law, and who bears the burden of proof?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate defence requires an actual, imminent and unlawful attack on a person or on legally protected interests. The defence must be directed against the attacker and must not obviously exceed the limits necessary to stop the attack. The law does not require mathematical proportionality between the attack and the defence, especially where the attack is sudden and violent. The defender may use the means available at the moment.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the conditions were absent or that the limits were exceeded. The defence does not have to prove a negative. The court must assess the situation from the defender's perspective at the moment of the act, including night-time, isolation, the visible knife, the numerical superiority and the suddenness of the attack. Fear and confusion cannot automatically justify any act, but they are relevant to the defender's perception and to the intensity of the response.
2. Should the two stabs be assessed separately? Did Vasile exceed the limits?
Read the worked answer
Yes, the two stabs must be assessed separately because the danger changed. The first stab occurred while Mihai was still standing, still holding the knife and only two metres away. A reasonable person could conclude that the attack was ongoing and that Vasile needed to neutralise the threat. That first act is strongly arguable as legitimate defence, even if the pepper spray had partially affected Mihai.
The second stab occurred after Mihai had fallen and the accomplice had fled. If the evidence shows that Mihai was disarmed, incapacitated or no longer able to continue the attack, the second stab may exceed the limits. The court must examine the time interval, Mihai's movements, whether he still held a weapon, and Vasile's subjective state. Exceeding the limits is not proven by the mere fact that death occurred; it requires a clear excess over what was necessary to stop the attack.
3. If the court finds an excess of legitimate defence, what are the consequences for Vasile's liability?
Read the worked answer
If the court finds that the first stab was defensive but the second was excessive, Vasile should not be treated as an ordinary intentional murderer. Moldovan criminal law treats exceeding the limits of legitimate defence as a circumstance that reduces liability for the actual act. The court should establish which act caused death and whether the excess was committed with direct or indirect intent.
The sentence must reflect the reduced social danger: the initial attack, the knife, the night-time setting, Vasile's age and his cooperation with the police. A conviction for intentional homicide may remain possible, but with the mitigating circumstance of exceeding legitimate defence and a substantially reduced punishment. The court should also consider whether the second stab was a reflexive continuation of the first, which affects intent. Acquittal is appropriate only if the entire conduct remained within legitimate defence.