Conditions for written hearing of the second instance of criminal cases Written hearing means that before the appeal court makes a judgment, it does not directly summon the litigation participants to appear in court, does not directly investigate the facts of the case, and only examines the case files submitted in the first instance. The method of review of materials. Directly summoning litigation participants to appear in court, or directly investigating the facts of the case before making a judgment is called a direct trial. Our country is a socialist country under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialist law is a concentrated expression of the people's will and an important weapon for attacking enemies, punishing crimes, protecting the people, and defending the socialist revolution and socialist construction. The task of China's Criminal Procedure Law is, on the one hand, to ensure accurate and timely ascertainment of criminal facts and the correct application of the law in the fight against counterrevolutionaries and other criminals; on the other hand, it is also to ensure that through the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Law, Innocent persons are not subject to criminal prosecution. Article 134 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "The people's court of second instance shall conduct a comprehensive review of the facts determined and the applicable laws of the first instance judgment, without being limited by the scope of appeals or protests.""** *If only some defendants in the same criminal case appeal, the entire case shall be reviewed and handled together." These regulations show that our country's laws are very cautious in hearing appeal cases and fully protect the interests of the people. They are essentially different from the "statutory trials" of bourgeois countries. Regarding the trial form of second-instance cases, my country's Criminal Procedure Law does not make specific provisions. It only states in Article 141: The procedures for the second-instance People's Court to try appeal and protest cases, except for the provisions of the special chapter on second-instance procedures, Except for the above, the provisions of the first instance procedure shall be followed. When a people's court hears a first-instance criminal case, it must conduct a trial directly in accordance with the provisions of the first-instance procedure. This "reference" provision in this article indicates that when the people's court of second instance hears cases where parties protest, they do not necessarily need to adopt a direct hearing method. It can be heard directly or on paper. Even if it is a direct trial, the first-instance procedure may not be applicable to all cases. For example, only certain participants in the proceedings may be summoned to appear to investigate certain facts (rather than all participants), or only the defendant may be summoned for further hearing on the grounds of appeal, etc. The Criminal Procedure Law does not stipulate what form of trial must be used in second-instance cases. Of course, there is no problem of violating the Procedural Law by not using a certain trial form. However, certain forms of trial serve certain tasks. When determining the trial format, the people's court of second instance must, in accordance with the authorization of the Criminal Procedure Law, consider whether it is conducive to the judgment and ruling of the lower people's court, whether it is factually correct, whether it is appropriate in the application of the law, and whether it is legal in the litigation process. It should not be considered that this is just a matter of trial form and should not be taken seriously. Our country implements a two-instance system. The second-instance judgments and rulings heard by the Intermediate People's Court, the Higher People's Court and the Supreme People's Court are legally effective judgments and rulings. At the same time, the High People's Court also examines and supervises lower-level people by hearing appeals or protest cases. The trial work of the People's Court and the task of summarizing trial experience. Therefore, whether the trial form is appropriate is an extremely important issue related to whether the second-instance people's court can correctly judge the case, punish the crime, protect the people, and complete the work tasks of the superior people's court. It is wrong to emphasize the inconvenience of transportation, lack of manpower, or to rush to judgment in order to shorten the case handling time, and not to directly try some cases that should be tried directly. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to conduct unnecessary direct hearings on cases that can be heard on paper, thereby wasting manpower and financial resources and affecting the timely hearing of the cases. The form in which a second-instance case will be heard should be determined based on the specific circumstances of the case, and experience should be accumulated in trial practice. Based on the actual situation and experience of second-instance cases in my country, the author believes that they can be roughly divided into the following categories: First, the case can be executed in writing. The first is a case in which the facts found in the original judgment are clear, the evidence is sufficient, and the dossier materials are complete. The appellant has no objection to the facts found in the original judgment, but only believes that the original judgment improperly applied the law in qualitative sentencing or the litigation procedures were illegal and files an appeal. For example, although the defendant admits the facts found in the original judgment, he believes that according to the law, his behavior does not constitute a crime, or that although it constitutes a crime, the circumstances are minor or the characterization is inappropriate, so the punishment should be reduced or exempted. The other is that the facts found in the original judgment are clear, the evidence is sufficient, and the materials are complete. The appellant denies the criminal facts found in the original judgment, but a certain basis he proposed to deny the facts found in the original judgment does not exist after verification by the people's court of first instance, or even if It raises the existence of certain facts but does not affect the conviction and sentencing.
The same feature of these two types of appeal cases is that the entire process of the case is clear and can be determined with the reporting materials of the original trial. The People's Court of second instance does not need to conduct any investigation, mainly from the perspective of legal application. review. Therefore, during the trial, only the judges handling the case need to form a collegial panel to conduct a comprehensive review and careful evaluation of the dossier materials before making a correct decision. The second is the need to hear cases directly. It mainly refers to cases in which the people's court of second instance can make a correct judgment without direct investigation in cases where the facts of the case cannot be ascertained. The following types of cases fall into this situation: 1. Cases in which the appellant raises objections to the main criminal facts identified in the original trial, and after a comprehensive review of the case file materials, it is found that the main criminal facts identified in the original trial lack basis or insufficient evidence. In this type of appeal, the defendant generally points out why there are no specific reasons and evidence for the criminal facts found in the original trial, and requests the superior people's court to verify and handle it. However, in some cases, the defendant does not provide any reasons, but simply denies the facts of the crime and asks for verification. In this case, the superior people's court cannot think that the defendant just ignored it without mentioning reasons, or even regarded it as "quibble". Instead, it should carefully examine whether the factual basis found in the original trial is sufficient. If problems are found, they must be directly investigated and tried. Otherwise, they will be investigated and tried directly. There is a risk of misjudgment. Because in a specific case, the defendant may not be able to provide counter-evidence. In a gang rape case, it was found out after trial that one night in October 1972, the first offender gathered two other accomplices to play poker at a young woman's home until late at night. The first offender deliberately turned off the lights and another accomplice forcibly gang raped the young woman. . The court of first instance sentenced the first offender to death and executed it immediately. This was confirmed by the victim's complaint and the confessions of the two co-defendants. The other three people present that night all unanimously testified that the gang rape was true. Under this circumstance, the first offender could no longer produce other witnesses or evidence to prove that he did not commit the crime of rape, but he still repeatedly complained that he did not commit the rape and only admitted to committing the obscene act. The High People's Court reviewed the original file materials and found that the two co-defendants gave erratic and unstable accounts of the gang rape. The victim did not report the crime at first, but only said that he was gang raped, then he said he was insulted, and then he said he was gang raped. The circumstances are inconsistent with the accounts given by the two co-defendants. It can be seen that the original trial found insufficient evidence for the crime of gang rape. After a local review, the victim denied the original report, saying that she had repeatedly mobilized propaganda and cooperated to undermine the "current counter-revolutionary" regulations for educated young people to go to the mountains and countryside, so she had to make a report that went against the facts. In fact, the gangsters were just playing tricks on her. There was no rape or gang rape. The above is a collection of questions that the editor has answered for you. If you still have any questions, please feel free to come and consult us. Legal purpose:
1. Adjournment Adjournment means that during the court trial, if there are circumstances that can affect the progress of the trial, the court decides to postpone the trial until the reasons that affect the trial disappear and then open the trial again. . According to the provisions of Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Law, there are three situations in which the trial may be postponed: 1. It is necessary to notify new witnesses to appear in court, obtain new evidence, re-identify or conduct an inquest; 2. The procuratorate discovers that the case for prosecution requires Supplementary investigation and making suggestions; 3. The trial cannot be held because the parties apply for recusal. According to the "Interpretation" of the Supreme People's Court, if the defender refuses to appear in court for defense or the defendant refuses to appear in court for defense, and the defendant requests to appoint another defender or requests the people's court to appoint another defense lawyer, the collegial panel shall also announce a postponement of the trial with the consent of the collegial panel. In addition, if the People's Procuratorate changes or adds an indictment so that the defendant or defender has the necessary time to prepare a defense, the collegial panel shall decide to postpone the trial. a The so-called modified or supplementary indictment means that according to Article 351 of the Rules of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the People's Procuratorate discovers that the defendant's true identity or criminal facts are consistent with the identity or charges recorded in the indictment before the People's Court pronounces the judgment. If the criminal facts are inconsistent with the case, the trial may be postponed. If it is discovered that the defendant's true identity or criminal facts are inconsistent with the identity stated in the indictment or the criminal facts charged, the indictment may be requested to be changed; if it is discovered that the co-criminal suspect or the omitted crime omitted from the indictment can be prosecuted and tried together, A supplementary prosecution may be requested. Article 178 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court also stipulates that if the People's Court discovers new facts during the trial that may affect the conviction and sentencing, it shall recommend to the People's Procuratorate to supplement the prosecution or change the prosecution. The date for adjourned trial can be determined in court or separately. If the decision is made in court, the time for the next court session shall be publicly announced.
If it cannot be determined in court, it may be determined separately and the prosecutor, parties and other litigation participants shall be notified. 2. Suspension of trial Suspension of trial means that during the trial of a case, the people's court decides to suspend the trial due to certain circumstances that affect the normal conduct of the trial, and wait until the circumstances disappear before resuming the trial. According to the "Interpretation" of the Supreme People's Court, during the trial of a case, if the private prosecutor or defendant suffers from mental illness or other serious illness, or the defendant escapes after the case is brought to the People's Court, resulting in the case being unable to continue hearing, the People's Court The trial should be suspended. If the trial cannot be continued due to other irresistible reasons, the trial may be postponed. After the reasons for suspending the trial disappear, the trial shall be resumed. The period during which the trial is suspended shall not be included in the trial period. Suspension is different from extension. The main difference between the two is (1) the time. The adjournment only applies to the court during the trial process, while the suspension of trial applies to the people's court accepting the case until the judgment. (2) The reasons are different. The reason for adjournment is an obstacle to the litigation itself. The disappearance of the obstacle depends on the completion of certain litigation activities. Therefore, the adjournment cannot stop litigation activities other than the court hearing. The reason for suspension is the emergence of irresistible circumstances. The elimination of the situation has nothing to do with the litigation itself. It is irrelevant, so suspending the trial will suspend all litigation activities. (3) The predictability of reopening the court is different. The time when a case is postponed or reopened is foreseeable and can even be decided by the court, but the time when a case is suspended or reopened is often unpredictable. The third is to terminate the trial. Termination of trial refers to the litigation activity in which the People's Court terminates the trial of a case that should not be heard or does not need to be continued if there are circumstances stipulated by law in the process of hearing a case. The statutory circumstances for terminating a trial refer to the provisions of Items 2 to 6 of Article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Law. A termination of trial is different from a stay of trial. The main difference between the two is (1) the reasons are different. The termination of the trial is due to the occurrence of circumstances that should not or does not require the continuation of the trial, while the suspension of the trial is due to the emergence of irresistible circumstances that make it impossible to continue the trial of the case. (2) The legal consequences are different. Once the trial is terminated, the litigation will be terminated and will not be resumed. The suspension of the trial is just a suspension of litigation activities. Once the reasons for the suspension disappear, the trial should be resumed.