Infracțiunea deviată – formă a unității sau pluralității de infracțiuni?
Deviated offence – a form of unity or of plurality of offences?

Summary/Abstract: Within this article the author presents the main opinions which were expressed in the literature of speciality on the matter of deviated offence. This reveals that there is no unitary point of view referring to this institution, three opinions being expressed in the matter. According to a first opinion it is deemed that the deviated offence concerns an apparent plurality of offences (natural unity), whether we refer to error in personam/error in objecto or to aberratio ictus. According to a second opinion, in case of deviated offence, regardless of the form it takes, there is a real plurality of offences, in the form of concurrence of offences. There is also a third opinion that, in the case of error in personam/error in objecto, it should be noted the existence of a single offence, while in case of aberratio ictus it should be noted the concurrence of offences. The judicial practice in Romania, in order to avoid any problems that might occur, has opted to note the perpetration of a single offence, both in case of error in personam and in case of aberratio ictus. By analyzing the arguments presented by various authors, the author considers that in case of error in personam it should be noted the existence of a natural unity of offence and, therefore, the perpetration of a single offence committed with intent. On the other hand, in case of aberratio ictus, if there is both punishable attempt and offence with basic intent, also incriminated when perpetrated with this form of guilt, it should be noted a concurrence of offences, between the offence imagined by the perpetrator and the offence actually produced, committed with basic intent. In the other cases, the author considers that a single offence with intent should be noted in case of aberratio ictus as well.

• Details
• Contents