Case review
On April 20 14 14, Su, the head of Shandong Yuanda Industry and Trade Co., Ltd., and Yu Huan, his son, were restricted and insulted by1/the debt collector for borrowing usury. Du Zhihao, a debt collector, took off Sue's trousers, exposed her genitals and insulted her. After the police arrived, they did not effectively control the scene. After the police left the reception room, Yu Huan wanted to go out with the police and was stopped. In desperation, he stabbed people with a knife, causing one death and three injuries.
On February 20 1717, Liaocheng Intermediate People's Court sentenced Yu Huan to life imprisonment for intentional injury. After the judgment of the first instance, both the defendant Yu Huan and the victim refused to accept the appeal.
2065438+On May 27th, 2007, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province heard the case in a public hearing through Weibo live broadcast.
Whether Yu Huan's behavior constitutes justifiable defense is the focus of this case.
During the trial of the second instance, the prosecutor appointed by the Shandong Provincial Procuratorate pointed out that the case was caused by illegal debt-forcing, which was a defensive injury case. The first-instance judgment did not identify the nature of defense, and the law was wrong.
The prosecution further stated that Yu Huan's behavior was defensive in nature, but it was excessive in defense.
The defense lawyer believes that Yu Huan belongs to self-defense and does not plead guilty. However, the behavior of the victim's agent against Huan belongs to self-defense or excessive defense. The agent of the victim Guo Yangang believes that Su was insulted and Yu Huan was beaten, but the violent beating that seriously endangered his personal safety did not exist, which was not enough to have a significant impact on life and health and did not constitute a prerequisite for legitimate defense.
Du Zhihao's attorney believes that Yu Huan's behavior belongs to indirect intentional homicide.
The presiding judge of the Yu Huan case explained in detail the reasons for the change of sentence.
During the trial, both the prosecution and the defense and the victim's litigation agent fully expressed their opinions. 2065438+On June 23, 2007, Shandong Higher People's Court made a first-instance judgment, and found that Yu Huan constituted excessive defense and sentenced him to five years in prison.
President of Shandong Higher People's Court:
After the second trial, we believe that:
1. Yu Huan stabbed Du Zhihao and other four people with a knife, which is to stop the ongoing illegal infringement. His behavior is defensive.
Second, Yu Huan's behavior caused one death, two serious injuries and one minor injury, which seriously exceeded the necessary limit and caused great damage. It belongs to excessive defense and should bear corresponding criminal responsibility according to law.
Third, the purpose of Yu Huan's stabbing is to prevent illegal infringement, and he wants to leave the reception room. The evidence can't prove the result of Yu Huan's indulgence or intentional injury, so Yu Huan's behavior does not constitute intentional homicide, but intentional injury under excessive defense, which should constitute intentional injury.
Fourth, in view of the fact that Yu Huan's behavior was an excessive defense, Yu Huan was able to truthfully confess the main crime after being brought to justice, and the circumstances of the injured party insulting Huan's mother were serious, taking into account the facts, nature, circumstances and harmful consequences of Huan's crime, he made a decision to reduce the punishment according to law. Yu Huan was sentenced to five years in prison for intentional injury.
The second trial is a benign interaction between justice and public opinion.
Every word is enough to touch the nerves of the public, involving gangsters, usury, police inaction, one death and three injuries, as well as exposing the lower body and humiliating the mother. Doubts and discussions surrounding this case quickly fermented on the Internet. How to respond to public questions? How to properly measure crime and punishment with the balance of law and give Yu Huan, a young man who has just entered the society, a fair judgment? The Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, which tried the case again, chose to promote justice through publicity, and the trial of this case was broadcast live in Weibo. Finally, through the well-founded judgment of Shandong High Court, the justice of entity and procedure was realized, and a vivid rule of law education lesson was given to the whole people.
Legal experts believe that the trial procedure of the second instance of Yu Huan's case is standardized and orderly, which guarantees the litigation rights of all parties in litigation according to law. Especially on the witness problem that has plagued criminal proceedings for more than ten years, Yu Huan dared to let the victim and the parties testify in court in the second trial, thus realizing "court confrontation".
Chen Weidong, a professor at the Law School of Renmin University of China: According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, both the prosecution and the defense have objections to the witness testimony, and if the witness testimony has a significant impact on conviction and sentencing, they should testify in court. This is to ensure that we can objectively find out the authenticity of witness testimony, realize the original intention of trial-centered litigation system reform, and realize judicial justice. So I think this practice of Shandong High Court is a good example. In the future, people's courts at all levels should allow witnesses to appear in court when trying criminal cases.
Social concern makes the trial of Huan more focused, but the judicial balance should not be influenced by the trend of public opinion. "The people have a voice and the judiciary should respond." For cases that have become public topics because of social concern, the judiciary must also assume the social responsibility of answering and responding. Therefore, the public trial of Yu Huan's case is responsible for the public's right to know. More than people, including NPC deputies and CPPCC members 100, were invited to attend the second trial of Huan case, and the trial process was broadcast live in Weibo, the official court of Shandong High Court.
Zhao Bingzhi, a professor at Beijing Normal University: I think this is a benign interaction, that is, the media pays attention and public opinion raises many questions. Then the judicial organs take this as a clue and consider this opinion of public opinion, but in the end it has to be implemented in factual evidence and law. I think this is a benign interaction.