1998 12 1 at 6 o'clock in the morning, in Wenzhou Shuangyu Jishi Shidanda Hardware Factory, the defendants Chen Niufa and Chen Nianying had a quarrel with Mr. and Mrs. Ye because of trivial matters, and then there was a scuffle, and Ye died in this fight. 1999 15 February 15, Lucheng district people's court sentenced the two defendants 1 1 year and 5 years' imprisonment respectively for intentional injury. The defendant refused to accept the appeal and appealed to the Municipal Intermediate People's Court, believing that he was innocent. On April 24, 2000, Lucheng District People's Court retried the case according to the ruling of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court. Both the prosecution and the defense presented evidence again and cross-examined the facts of the case. After two or three hours of war of words, there is still no result. The court announced that "the judgment will be made another day".
According to the manager, the complexity of this case lies in the great differences between the prosecution and the defense on the cause of the death of the deceased. Whether it was intentional injury or accident has always been the focus of debate between the two sides.
preliminary examination/check
Lucheng District People's Procuratorate filed a public prosecution with Lucheng District People's Court with 1999 on June 8, and the court formed a collegiate bench according to law.
In court, the trial was held in public.
According to the autopsy report of the Municipal Public Security Bureau, the procuratorate accused the two defendants of intentional injury.
Defendant Chen Niufa argued: I just hit Ye on the head and asked for a lighter punishment.
Zhu Zufei, the defendant's defense lawyer, explained in detail that the fact that the prosecution accused the defendant Chen Niufa of intentional injury and death was unclear.
In his view, intentional injury refers to the act of intentionally breaking the law and harming the health of others. In judicial practice, it should be strictly different from general beatings, involving the boundary between crime and non-crime. In this case, the two defendants and the victim Ye had a quarrel with the workers in the same factory because of a trivial matter, and then they fought each other. Defendant Chen Niufa only punched the victim. From the defendant's subjective analysis, there is no deep prejudice between the two sides. The quarrel is only for a little lock, and there is no intention to harm others' health at all.
At the same time, lawyer Zhu also put forward different opinions on the qualitative issue of this case.
He believed that Ye's death was suffocating. That is, people with thymic lymphatic constitution are slightly stimulated to cause sudden death. This can be proved by forensic evidence: the victim's lobe is a person with thymic lymphatic constitution. According to the principle of forensic medicine, a person with this special constitution, slightly stimulated or infected, may lead to sudden death. At the same time, the review opinions of the appraisal book are also put forward. Ye's death does not rule out the possibility of restraining death.
Therefore, Zhu Zufei believes that this case is an accident.
After trial, Lucheng District People's Court held that the defendants Chen Niufa and Chen Nianying intentionally hurt others because of trivial matters, causing death, and their actions constituted intentional injury and should be punished. The public prosecutor accused the two defendants of the crime. In view of the fact that the two defendants can still truthfully confess the above facts after being brought to justice, and the defendant Chen Nianying played an auxiliary role in intentionally hurting * * * *, being an accessory, the punishment can be mitigated according to law. According to the criminal law, the verdict is as follows: the defendant Chen Niufa committed the crime of intentional injury, sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment 1 1 year and deprived of political rights 1 year; Defendant Chen Nianying was convicted of intentional injury and sentenced to 5 years in prison; Defendants Chen Niufa and Chen Nianying compensated plaintiff Li Chen for losses of 69,000 yuan and 30,000 yuan respectively; Defendants Chen Niufa and Zhen Nianying were jointly and severally liable for their economic losses totaling 99,000 yuan.
second trial
Chen Niufa and Chen Nianying refused to accept the case, and appealed to the Municipal Intermediate People's Court on the grounds of "wrong judgment in the first instance" and "wrong application of law in the first instance" respectively.
The defense lawyers of the two defendants defended them again in the second trial.
Zhu Zufei believes that the determination of the first instance
The real mistake. One of his bases is that the judicial department's review opinion holds that "small focal hemorrhage in the lobe brain stem is difficult to be identified as the cause of death". Secondly, Chen Niufa just punched the victim. At the same time, there is evidence that Ye suddenly fell to the ground and died. His death was short and quick. If Ye Caozhi died of brain stem injury, the death time should be longer. Lawyer Zhu also cited the identification of thymus lymphoid tissue hyperplasia of Ye by the Institute of Forensic Medicine, pointing out that Ye's thymus lymphoid constitution can be suppressed to death with a little stimulation.
When the Municipal Intermediate People's Court formed a collegial panel to hear the case according to law, it held that the fact that the defendants Chen Niufa and Chen Nianying committed the crime of intentional injury in the original judgment was unclear and the evidence was insufficient, which seriously violated the litigation procedure. Therefore, make
The final ruling revoked Lucheng District People's Court (1999) No.882 criminal incidental civil judgment; Sent back for retrial. retry
On the afternoon of April 24th, Lucheng District People's Court held another session to hear the case. The prosecution presented the forensic certificate of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court in court, arguing that Ye's death was caused by brain stem contusion and bleeding after the head was subjected to an external knife. The appraisal book reads: The victim Ye fell to the ground and died after being hit in the head during a scuffle with others. Autopsy found that there was focal hemorrhage at T-spot of brain, but no fatal injury was found in other organs. Combined with the investigation and analysis of the case, it is considered that Ye's death was caused by brain stem injury and bleeding after head trauma.
This identification also refutes the statement that the leaf system inhibits death, and thinks that his death does not meet the diagnostic criteria of inhibiting death. As for the theory of sudden death of thymic lymphoid constitution, this appraisal book also thinks that it cannot be established, because the academic circles tend to deny the theory of sudden death of thymic lymphoid constitution at present. In court, the defendant's lawyer Zhu Zufei believed that this guide
It is wrong to order books.
Chen, the presiding judge of this case, said that the case is currently being mediated on civil compensation according to legal procedures, and the collegial panel will hold a collegial panel meeting and make a judgment in the near future.
Our reporter failed to live in the province (reprinted from Wenzhou Evening News "Legal Time and Space" on April 27, 2000)
Crime of infringing citizens' personal rights and democratic rights
Chen Niufa's Defense in the Second Instance of Intentional Injury (Death) in Zhejiang Province
Zhu Zufei 2005-08-1013: 44: 24 Source: China Criminal Defense Network.
The presiding judge and judge:
Entrusted by Chen Niufa, the defendant in this case, Zhejiang Zhenan Law Firm appointed me as the second-instance defender of Chen Niufa, and now I would like to express the following defense opinions on this case.
1. The appraisal conclusions of Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court (2000) No.21and Wenzhou Public Security Bureau's Criminal Science and Technology Department's autopsy report No.1 170 are wrong, among which the city's Sino-French appraisal violates the provisions of the procedural law.
According to the principle of forensic medicine, patients with brain stem contusion should find: (1) brain stem contusion and laceration. The continuity of nerve tissue in the brain stem injury site is destroyed, and there are local bleeding and edema, which may be combined with contusion and laceration of brain nerve and nerve fiber. (2) punctate and focal brain stem hemorrhage (in this case, only a small amount of red blood cells exuded); (3) Softening of brain stem. Brain stem local tissue ischemia. Subsequently, a large number of lattice cells appeared, devouring and clearing the softened necrotic tissue. In this case, only a small amount of red blood cells oozed around the cerebral vessels, but there was no brain stem contusion and softening. Therefore, it is considered that there is no factual basis for leaf brainstem contusion.
The second and second appraisals wrongly equate punctate hemorrhage of brain stem with contusion of brain stem. Appraised by the Judicial Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, the blood vessels in the brain stem tissue slices of the deceased were dilated (it is understood that the forensic doctor only saw a small amount of red blood cells beside the blood vessels). Punctate bleeding is caused by vasodilation and exudation, which is a common manifestation of the deceased, not caused by brain contusion.
Third, the forensic identification of the City Intermediate People's Court believes that the focal brain stem hemorrhage is caused by the friction and tear of the cerebral hemorrhage tube. The defender believes that this view has no objective factual basis. Since the cerebral vessels are torn, where is the tear? Without tearing, there would be no friction and tearing of cerebral vessels. Obviously, this view is untenable.
Fourth, the forensic identification of the Municipal Public Security Bureau believes that many soft tissue injuries and lung and kidney bleeding are caused by blunt instruments. This determination is also completely wrong. Many soft tissue injuries in Ye's whole body were mostly abrasions, which were caused by dragging the corpse after Ye died. Pulmonary and renal bleeding are symptoms of sudden death.
Fifth, the forensic appraisal of the City Intermediate People's Court found that it was difficult to suppress death in this case. This defender thinks it is wrong. See the second point for specific reasons.
Sixth, the theory of sudden death of thymus lymphoid constitution, although this issue has been debated in the medical field for nearly 100 years. But in fact, there are still reports of sudden death of thymic lymphoid constitution in China. The Department of Forensic Medicine and the Department of Pathological Anatomy of Zhejiang Medical University analyzed the causes of death of 14 cases of sudden death of thymic lymphoid constitution in the past 40 years, among which 1 1 cases were related to thymic lymphoid constitution. In the case that the medical profession has actively affirmed the theoretical research results of sudden death of thymic lymphoid constitution, the forensic identification of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court categorically ruled out that leaf death has nothing to do with thymic lymphoid constitution. How scientific is its appraisal?
Seventh, the appraisal of the Ministry of Justice is an authoritative appraisal. The forensic doctor carefully observed the samples submitted for inspection and made an appraisal according to the principles of forensic medicine. He believes that it is difficult to identify the small focal hemorrhage in the leaf brainstem as the cause of death, and there is no corresponding evidence to overturn the facts identified and the scientific nature of the identification. Therefore, the court should adopt the appraisal conclusion. It is worth pointing out that this appraisal was transferred by the prosecution to the court of first instance, not the evidence provided by the defense. The court of first instance held that the evidence provided by the defense was wrong.
Eighth, the forensic expertise of the Intermediate People's Court violated the provisions of the procedural law.
According to the second paragraph of Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Law: "If the medical appraisal of personal injury is controversial and needs to be re-appraised, it shall be conducted by the hospital designated by the provincial people's government". However, in the case of controversial identification, this case was actually identified by the forensic room of the Intermediate People's Court, which violated the above provisions and its appraisal conclusion was invalid.
Second, the first-instance judgment that the victim died of brain stem injury is completely wrong. The cause of death of Ye is thymic lymphoid constitution inhibiting death or sudden death.
First, according to Chen Niufa, the appellant, Chen Niufa only punched the victim.
The second time, in the scuffle, Chen Niuying gave Ye a knee. "Ye Yi let go and fell to the ground." It shows that the blade dies immediately under the action of external light force, and its death process is short and rapid.
Third, if the brain stem is injured and dies, the death time is longer, which is inconsistent with this case.
Fourthly, the analysis conclusion of the documentary evidence inspection and appraisal book (1999) No.31of the Institute of Forensic Medicine.
It is pointed out that it is difficult to identify small focal hemorrhage in the lobe brain stem as the cause of death.
Fifthly, point (2) of the analysis statement of the forensic doctor's certificate points out: "In the tissue section examination, the ratio of the parenchyma area of the leaf thymus to the total area of the thymus tissue is more than 40 under the microscope, and the thymus lymphoid tissue is active." According to the principle of forensic medicine, the leaf system is thymic lymphatic constitution, and sudden death can occur with a little stimulation.
Sixth, the appraiser believes: "Ye's death does not rule out the possibility of death due to external constraints.
Seventh, through a comprehensive autopsy, important fatal injuries, mechanical injuries or poisoning have been absolutely ruled out.
Eighth, there is not enough evidence of violent death in this case.
To sum up the above points, the defender believes that Ye's death is due to the inhibition of thymus lymphatic constitution or sudden death. Therefore, it is completely wrong to judge the death of leaf brainstem injury in the first instance.
Third, the first-instance judgment and the prosecution accused the defendant Chen Niufa of committing the crime of intentional injury (death). The facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.
Intentional injury refers to the act of intentionally and illegally damaging the personal health of others. There are two situations: one is that the integrity of human tissue is destroyed. One is the damage to human organ function. In judicial practice, it should be strictly different from general beatings, involving the boundary between crime and non-crime. General beatings usually only cause temporary pain or mild nerve stimulation, and will not endanger human health. Generally, beating people does not constitute a crime, and it cannot be punished according to the crime of intentional injury, but only administrative punishment according to the administrative punishment of public security. Distinguishing between general assault and intentional injury, the subjective intentional content is different, and its objective injury consequences are completely different. In this case, the two defendants and the victim Ye are workers in the same factory. They quarreled over trivial matters, and then they quarreled. There is no intention to harm others' health at all. 2. The constitution of the crime of intentional injury, in addition to the attempted form, must be based on the premise of causing harm to the defendant, that is, causing minor injuries or serious injuries, excluding minor injuries. Judging from the damage consequences, there are no damage symptoms except the symptoms of sudden death (such as brain stem hemorrhage, pulmonary and renal hemorrhage, spleen congestion and other physical bleeding) and the symptoms of abrasion (the abrasion is caused by the drag of the victim after his death), that is, the beating behavior of the two defendants in this case did not cause minor injuries to the victim, let alone serious injuries. The crime of intentional injury (death) is an aggravated crime. The result of this crime can only be injury (minor or serious injury). The premise of injury in this case does not exist. How can the result get worse? The skin doesn't exist and the hair will attach. Therefore, the defender believes that the first-instance judgment and the intentional injury alleged by the prosecution are unclear and the evidence is insufficient. The defendant's behavior in this case belongs to the crime of general injury.
4. Regarding the nature of the case, the defender put forward the following opinions for the reference of the mediation court.
First, this case can deny the crime of negligent death.
Objectively, the case also has serious consequences of the victim's death. Through today's court investigation, the defender believes that Ye's death is the death or sudden death caused by the inhibition of thymic lymphatic constitution, that is, Ye was stimulated and suddenly died. Assuming that the accident is ruled out in this case, there is such a situation. In this case, was it Chen Niufa or Chen Nianying who caused Ye's death due to slight irritation? Or was the victim emotional or stressed? In this regard, there are also unclear facts in this case that cannot be identified.
Second, this case was an accident.
Assuming that this case was caused by a slight stimulus from one of the two defendants, then this case should also be an accident. Death caused by an accident refers to the result that the actor objectively leads to the death of others, but it is not intentional or subjective, but due to unforeseeable reasons. The so-called unforeseeable reason means that the actor not only did not foresee the damage result, but also could not foresee it at all according to his actual cognitive ability and the specific situation at that time.
The victim of this case, Ye Caozhi, may die if he is slightly stimulated, which is impossible for even a very smart person to foresee. Both defendants are migrant workers from rural areas, and they cannot be expected to foresee that their actions (a little achievement) may lead to the death of Ye, a big horse thief. They have no intention or fault for the damage result, but it is a no-fault accident due to unforeseen reasons.
To sum up, Ye's death was purely an accident, and the evidence of the first-instance judgment and the prosecution's accusation that the defendant Chen Niufa committed intentional injury was insufficient. Therefore, the defender decided that the defendant Chen Niufa's behavior did not constitute a crime and requested the court to adopt it. At the same time, the defender believes that the following two points in this case should attract the full attention of the collegial panel: First, it is impossible to objectively blame Ye for his death; Two, can not be in the case of insufficient evidence, still use the practice of no doubt to make a guilty verdict on the defendant, and request the court of second instance to cancel the judgment of first instance and declare the defendant innocent.
I am here to convey
Wenzhou Intermediate People's Court
Defender: Zhejiang Zhenan Law Firm.
Lawyer Zhu Zufei
May 2000