What is the opinion of public prosecution?
On the basis of the people's procuratorate's prosecution of the criminal defendant, the public prosecution opinion fully exposes the criminal behavior of the defendant, confirms the criminal behavior of the defendant, analyzes the nature, consequences and harm to society of the criminal behavior, and expounds why the defendant should be investigated for criminal responsibility. Supplementary explanation of the public prosecution filed by the procuratorate to further expose the facts, evidence and laws of the defendant's criminal behavior.
Model essay on public prosecution opinions
Defendants: Ma, Zheng Yankang, Fan Shaocong,.
Cause of action: endangering public safety in a dangerous way.
ProsecutionNo.: Xing Criminal Procedure LawNo. [20xx]33
The presiding judge and judge:
In the case of defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang, Fan Shaocong and endangering public safety heard in court today, according to the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 15 of the Organic Law of People's Procuratorate, I was appointed by the chief procurator of our hospital to appear in court as a state prosecutor, support public prosecution and perform my legal supervision duties according to law.
In the court investigation just now, the presiding judge, the judge and the prosecutor questioned the defendant respectively. Defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang and Fan Shaocong confessed to the court the fact that they participated in the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means. In the stage of testifying in court, the prosecutor presented a series of witness testimonies, documentary evidence, expert conclusions and physical evidence to the court. All the above evidences were cross-examined by the defendants in court, which fully proved that the criminal facts of the defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang and Fan Shaocong were clear and the evidence was sufficient to identify them. Below, the public prosecutor put forward the following public prosecution opinions on the constitution, the root cause, the harm to society and the legal responsibilities of the defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang, Fan Shaocong and the crime of endangering public security by dangerous methods:
1. Article 114 of the Criminal Law stipulates that whoever sets fire, breaks water, explodes, releases toxic, radioactive, infectious disease pathogens and other substances or endangers public safety by other dangerous means, but has not caused serious consequences, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years.
Defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang and Fan Shaocong colluded with each other in order to illegally seek other people's property, with a plan in advance and a clear division of labor. Ma, Zheng Yankang and Fan Shaocong, on April 7, 20 12, drove a motor vehicle to create a false traffic accident on the expressway, defrauding others' property and endangering the personal and property safety of the unspecified majority driving on the expressway. His behavior has violated the criminal law and constituted a crime of endangering public safety in a dangerous way.
Second, objectively, this kind of criminal behavior has endangered public safety.
The most important feature of the behavior endangering public security lies in the unspecific nature of the subject of infringed rights. The perpetrator did not specify specific people and things at the beginning of the infringement, but pointed to the unspecified majority, or the perpetrator intended to infringe on specific people and things. However, due to the high risk of the behavior itself, it may endanger the lives and property of other unspecified majority at any time while endangering the specific object.
In this case, although the four defendants selected a specific victim and the vehicle they were driving as the object of infringement in advance, in the process of committing the crime, because the case occurred on the expressway, there were many vehicles and the speed was fast, this behavior of creating a false traffic accident may endanger most other vehicles except the selected object at any time, resulting in unpredictable and serious consequences such as rear-end collision or other car crashes. Therefore, the defendant's criminal behavior has endangered public safety.
Third, the defendant subjectively committed knowingly.
The subjective requirement of the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means is intentional. What are the dangerous consequences of endangering public safety? Do you know? Understand. As far as this case is concerned, the defendant drove a motor vehicle to create a false traffic accident on the expressway, and he must have a clear understanding of the personal and property losses on the selected vehicle in advance, which belongs to direct intention; At the same time, according to the cognitive level of ordinary people, the defendant should also be able to clearly realize that this kind of behavior on the expressway is very likely to cause harm to the life and property safety of a third person other than the selected target, but it is indirect intention to let this harmful result happen.
This crime is very dangerous.
As we all know, traffic accidents do great harm to society, causing a considerable number of deaths every year, especially on highways. Therefore, the defendant's behavior on the expressway in this case is no less harmful to society than the other four acts that endanger public safety listed in the criminal law. At the same time, traffic accidents on expressways can generally cause casualties or property losses, and the probability of harmful consequences is very high. Therefore, the defendant's criminal behavior can be identified as? Other dangerous methods? .
Verb (abbreviation of verb) Defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang, Fan Shaocong, the cause of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means and sentencing opinions.
Defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang, Fan Shaocong and Yu 20 12, 17 April * * * colluded with each other to commit a crime. Apart from the fact that the four defendants were lucky to have a low education level, they were also inseparable from the selfish and narrow nature of the four defendants in their daily lives. As the saying goes? A gentleman makes money in a proper way. ?
Four defendants, you want to get property, not through normal channels such as labor and part-time, but by creating false traffic accidents to defraud other people's property, endangering the personal and property safety of the unspecified majority driving on the expressway. How can you stand it? Moreover, the social harm of * * * accomplice crime is more serious than ordinary criminal crime.
One of the three principles of China's criminal law is the principle of adaptation between crime and punishment. Article 5 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that the severity of punishment should be commensurate with the crimes committed by criminals and the criminal responsibilities they bear, that is, the defendant should be sentenced to corresponding punishment according to law. We believe that the defendants Ma, Zheng Yankang and Fan Shaocong violated the provisions of Article 114 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) in order to safeguard public safety, protect citizens' personal rights from infringement and ensure the smooth progress of socialist modernization. In the joint crime of * * *, Ma, Fan Shaocong, they all committed dangerous acts endangering public safety. The defendants Fan Shaocong and Wang Liqiang were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of more than two years and less than three years respectively. This is the need to maintain social stability and unity, and it also meets the strong demands of the broad masses of the people.
The above opinions suggest that the collegial panel give full consideration.
Prosecutors: Wang Yanli and Li Hu.
June 10th, two thousand xx.
Public prosecution opinion
Defendant: Chen Lifeng.
Cause of action: intentional homicide
ProsecutionNo.: Bai Jian Criminal Procedure [20xx] 120 1
The presiding judge and the people's jurors:
Today, the Fusong County People's Court held a public hearing in accordance with the law to hear the case of Chen Lifeng, the defendant who filed a public prosecution in our hospital, intentionally killing people. According to the provisions of Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and Article 15 of the Organic Law of People's Procuratorate, he was appointed by the chief procurator of our hospital to appear in court as a state prosecutor to support public prosecution and perform his legal supervision duties according to law. In the court investigation just now, the public prosecutor interrogated the defendant Chen Lifeng according to law, and read and produced a large number of documentary evidence and witness testimony. Although the defendant Chen Lifeng evaded the importance and shirked the responsibility in some links, a large amount of evidence is enough to prove the criminal fact of the defendant Chen Lifeng's intentional homicide, which should be punished by law. In order to better perform the public prosecutor's duties and clarify the public prosecutor's point of view, we hereby put forward the following public prosecution opinions on this case, and ask the collegial panel to fully consider and adopt them when deliberating.
1. The facts of the crime in this case are clear, and the evidence is basically true and sufficient.
In the just-concluded court investigation, the prosecutor conducted a comprehensive interrogation of the defendant Chen Lifeng. Although Chen Lifeng retracted his confession in court, the prosecutor presented a large number of witness testimony, expert conclusion, investigation record, physical evidence, documentary evidence and other evidence to the court to prove the case.
Defendant Chen Lifeng denied that Wang Zhen's family was murdered when he was interrogated by the public security organ for the first time, but he failed to pass the polygraph physiological and psychological experiment entrusted by the public security organ, which showed that his first statement of innocence was untrue and could not be accepted. The defendant claimed that his second confession in the public security organ was a false statement made by extorting a confession by torture. However, from the physical examination report of the detention center provided by the public security organ, it can be seen that the defendant Chen Lifeng's physical indicators were normal before and after entering and leaving the detention center, and his body had no obvious scars. It can be seen that he is in good health and has not been beaten or tortured to extract confessions. Therefore, his so-called act of extorting confessions by torture cannot be established. The defendant also admitted the fact of killing in his third confession to the prosecution, so the prosecutor thought that the defendant's confession could not be ruled out as illegal evidence.
Chen Lifeng's fingerprints were found on the sharp knife found by the public security organs near the crime scene. Witness Liu Jiangning testified in court that Chen Lifeng was eating and drinking in his restaurant with this knife from 8: 00 to 10, and his mood was abnormal, so he left at 10. Although Chen Lifeng argued that he went straight home to sleep after eating, there was no evidence to prove this, nor could he give a reasonable and convincing explanation for the reason why he lost his sharp knife. The shoe prints found by the public security organs at the crime scene were identified to be consistent with Chen Lifeng's physical characteristics. The fingerprint extracted from the light switch and the fingerprint extracted from the sharp knife were identified by experts, and their coincidence reached the industry standard, which was enough to confirm that the traces on the scene were left by Chen Lifeng, which proved that Chen Lifeng brought the sharp knife to the crime scene. The above-mentioned actions combined with the evidence in this case show that the defendant Chen Lifeng's defense lacks both logical basis and evidence support, and requests the collegial panel to reject it according to law.
According to the autopsy pathological report of the victim by baishan city Judicial Appraisal Center, all three members of Wang Zhen's family were stabbed to death with the same sharp knife. The above-mentioned evidence comes from legal sources and is relevant to this case. After cross-examination in court, all of them have the ability to prove each other, and have formed a complete chain of evidence, which is enough to prove that the criminal facts of the indictment against the defendant Chen Lifeng are clear and the evidence is true and sufficient.
Two, the defendant Chen Lifeng should be investigated for criminal responsibility for intentional homicide.
Defendant Chen Lifeng was in conflict with Wang Zhen because the victim Wang Zhen owed him 50,000 yuan, and resented the failure of debt collection. So he went to Wang Zhen's house with a knife on the evening of May 30, 20 12, and killed the unarmed Wang Zhen family of three.
The defendant Liu's illegal deprivation of life completely conforms to the objective elements of intentional homicide and has the necessary elements; When he commits a crime, there is no illegal reason to stop it, so his behavior is illegal; He is an adult with full criminal responsibility, and the evidence in the case shows that he has obvious subjective intention of illegally depriving others of their lives, so the responsibility in this case is self-evident. Therefore, the defendant Chen Lifeng's behavior violated the provisions of Article 232 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), and he should be investigated for criminal responsibility for intentional homicide. It is suggested that he be sentenced to death and executed immediately.
3. Defendant Chen Lifeng committed a bad crime with serious consequences and extremely bad social impact, which should be severely punished according to law.
The laws of all countries in the world, including China, regard life as the source of all values without exception, which not only shows concern for life itself, but also fully expresses respect for human rights. In our country, no one has the right to illegally deprive others of their right to life, and the crime of intentional homicide has always been the focus of our criminal law and judicial practice. Defendant Chen Lifeng ignored national laws and lives of others. After a verbal and physical conflict with Wang Zhen, he not only personally killed Wang Zhen that night, but also brutally killed Wang Zhen's unarmed and completely innocent wife and daughter in order to shut him up, which created this shocking tragedy and caused extremely bad social impact in the local area. This is a ruthless violation of law and morality. If it is not severely punished according to law, it will not be conducive to establishing judicial authority.
To sum up, the indictment found that the criminal facts of the defendant Chen Lifeng in this case were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient. In order to protect citizens' personal rights and property rights from infringement and maintain social order, the collegial panel is requested to make a fair judgment according to the facts and laws of this case.
Prosecutors: Hei Junxian and Zhang.
20xx May 14
Demonstration thesis of public prosecution
Defendants: Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen.
Cause of action: robbery
Prosecution number: 0 1
The presiding judge and judges (people's jurors):
According to Article 153 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), I was appointed by the People's Procuratorate of Qingxiu District to represent our hospital as a state prosecutor to support public prosecution, and to exercise legal supervision over criminal proceedings according to law. The following public prosecution opinions are put forward on the evidence and facts of this case, and the collegial panel is requested to fully consider and adopt them when deliberating.
(1) Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen committed robbery, with clear facts and sufficient evidence. According to the court investigation just now, the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen robbed the victim Yueming Wang of a Siemens L3508 mobile phone with a value of 1080 yuan at 23: 00 on February 22nd, 20xx. 20xx At about 24 o'clock on February 22nd, defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen, together with Chen Xiaoer and Asu, snatched the handbag of motorcycle victim Lei Huixin, with an estimated value of 4 145 yuan. The facts of these two robberies have been fully proved by the victims' statements, documentary evidence, physical evidence, expert conclusions, transcripts of inquests and inspections, confessions of defendants and other evidence presented by public security organs. These evidences confirm each other and are consistent with each other, forming a complete evidence chain. Therefore, it is found that the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen committed the crime of robbing others' legitimate property, and the evidence is true and sufficient.
(2) The behavior of the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen in driving has constituted the crime of looting, according to:
1. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen are normal adults. Reach the age of criminal responsibility, have the ability of criminal responsibility, and meet the main elements of robbery.
2. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen robbed by car, which violated the ownership of the victim's property and met the objective requirements of robbery.
3. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen took possession subjectively, that is, they robbed the mobile phone of the victim Yueming Wang who was talking on the phone while crossing the road and the bag of the victim Lei Huixin who was driving a motorcycle, and illegally took other people's money, which was in line with the subjective elements of robbery.
4. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen objectively robbed other people's mobile phones and handbags, and the amount was huge after identification, which met the objective requirements of robbery. To sum up, the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen met all the constitutive requirements of robbery, and they all constituted robbery.
(3) The social harmfulness of the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen's robbery and their lessons. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen used flying cars to rob others of their public and private property, and the amount was huge, which seriously undermined the normal social order and caused the victims Lei Huixin and Yueming Wang to suffer economic losses. Snatching by flying cars not only damages the safety of citizens' property, but also may be considered as a traffic accident, endangering public safety and undermining social stability.
The pursuit of rich material life can only be achieved through hard work and wealth, and it is absolutely allowed to rob others of their property to obtain illegal benefits. As the prosecutor of this case, I am deeply sorry to see that the two defendants took risks because of greed and embarked on today's criminal road. ? The French Open is long, but not leaking? In the face of a large amount of evidence, the law will always reflect its value of cracking down on crimes and protecting citizens' legitimate rights and interests in an objective, fair, just and appropriate way. Therefore, I hope that through today's trial, the two defendants can deeply reflect on the social harm of their speeding robbery, take this as a warning, make a good reform and return to society as soon as possible.
(4) Criminal responsibilities of defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen. Defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen openly robbed other people's property for the purpose of illegal possession, and the amount was huge. Their behavior violated the second paragraph of Article 267 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) and constituted robbery. He shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 3 years 10 years and fined. According to Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Robbery Criminal Cases (July 20xx 16), the amount of robbing public or private property is close to the standards of "huge amount" and "extremely huge amount" as stipulated in Items (2) and (3) of Article 1 of this Interpretation, and it has one of the circumstances as stipulated in Article 2 of this Interpretation, it can be respectively recognized as.
To sum up, the indictment found that the criminal facts of the defendants Feng Ridong and Feng Xuewen in this case were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient. The defendant shall be found guilty and convicted and sentenced according to law.
Prosecutor: Lu Jinghui