Han Lei subsequently appealed, and Han Lei's defense lawyer was replaced by a lawyer from Beijing Dacheng Law Firm in Xu Ping. Earlier, lawyer Xu Ping told the media that Han Lei's attention had been focused on the dispute with the child's mother. He misjudged the stroller next to him and thought that the goods had fallen. Psychologically, he should not be considered as intentional homicide, because he is afraid of going back to prison and has no desire to kill.
On June 9, 2009, the Beijing Higher People's Court held a public hearing on Han Lei's appeal. In court, Han Lei's defender drew the surveillance video at the time of the incident into an image and showed it to the court, and made a text description according to the time node. He believes that Han Lei didn't see clearly that it was a child in the car at the time of the incident, and the misjudgment should be caused by negligence, not intentional homicide. He suggested that the court of second instance change the sentence or send it back for retrial.
When the public prosecutor expressed his opinion in court, he said that the court of first instance ruled that the facts were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient, and new witness testimony was put forward in court. Judging from all kinds of evidence, the appellant Han Lei had the ability of criminal responsibility and identification and control at the time of the crime. Knowing that there was a child in the car, he lifted it over his head and fell down, which constituted a crime of intentional homicide. It is suggested that the court of second instance reject the appellant's request and uphold the original judgment.
165438+1On October 29th, the case of Daxing baby falling from a building was finalized.
165438+1On the morning of October 29th, the Beijing Higher People's Court made a final judgment on Han Lei's intentional homicide appeal, dismissed the appellant Han Lei's appeal and upheld the original judgment. Han Lei was finally sentenced to death.
The Beijing Higher People's Court held that the appellant Han Lei had been sentenced and still did not repent. Only nine months after his release from prison, he deliberately and illegally deprived others of their lives, resulting in the death of young children. His behavior has constituted the crime of intentional homicide, and the circumstances are extremely serious and should be punished according to law. Li Ming, the defendant in the original trial, knew that Han Lei was a criminal, but he still drove away from the crime scene to help Han Lei escape. His behavior has constituted the crime of harboring and should be punished according to law. Han Lei is a recidivist, so he should be severely punished according to law, and he should be punished together with the remaining crime of deprivation of political rights that was not completely executed in the previous judgment. If Li Ming commits a crime within the probation period for parole, he shall be released on parole according to law, and the punishment that has not been executed for the previous crime shall be combined with the punishment imposed for this crime. In view of Li Ming's surrender and unwillingness to let Han Lei get on the bus, he was given a lighter punishment according to law.
At the same time, Han Lei's appeal grounds lack factual and legal basis, which cannot be established and should be rejected. Han Lei's defender's defense opinions, such as changing the sentence and sending it back for retrial, are not supported by sufficient evidence, so this court will not accept them. The procuratorate's suggestion to dismiss Han Lei's appeal and uphold the original judgment is well founded and should be adopted. According to the facts, nature and circumstances of the crimes committed by Appellant Han Lei and Defendant Li Ming and the degree of harm to society, the judgment made by the court of first instance was correct in conviction, correct in applicable law, appropriate in sentencing and legal in trial procedure, and should be maintained.
Legal basis: People's Republic of China (PRC) Criminal Law.
Article 17 A person who has reached the age of 14 but is under the age of 16 who commits the crime of intentional homicide, intentional injury, serious injury or death, rape, robbery, drug trafficking, arson, explosion or throwing dangerous substances shall bear criminal responsibility. If a person who has reached the age of 14 and is under the age of 18 commits a crime, he shall be given a lighter or mitigated punishment.
Article 232 Whoever intentionally kills shall be sentenced to death, life imprisonment or fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years; If the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
Article 233 Whoever negligently causes death shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; If the circumstances are relatively minor, they shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years. Where there are other provisions in this Law, such provisions shall prevail.