The presiding judge and judge:
As the defender of Han XX, I attended today's trial according to law. First of all, the defender expressed sympathy and condolences to the victim's family, which was something that everyone present did not want to happen. However, as a defense lawyer, he shoulders the unshirkable duty of safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the defendant and has the responsibility to safeguard the dignity and justice of the law according to law. Assisting the court to accurately ascertain the facts of the case and make a fair judgment according to law is not only an explanation to the victim and his family, but also an explanation to the defendant and the whole society.
As far as this case is concerned, the defender's general defense opinion is that Han XX does not constitute the crime of intentional injury, and the accusation of intentional injury against Han XX cannot be established!
As we all know, the establishment of the crime of intentional injury objectively requires a causal relationship between the defendant's intentional injury behavior and the victim's (death) result. According to the principle of self-blame in China's criminal law, if there is no causal relationship between the actor's harmful behavior and the harmful result, then the actor is of course not criminally responsible for the harmful result. Specifically, in this case, it is necessary to find out whether there is a causal relationship between the behavior of the defendant Han XX and the death of the victim Jin X.
First of all, let's look at what Han XX did-according to the charges in the indictment and the facts ascertained by the court, Han XX did the act of "hitting Jin X's back with a steel pipe many times".
Therefore, the focus of this case is whether "hitting Jin× back with a steel pipe many times" has led to serious consequences of death.
According to the appraisal results of the forensic autopsy certificate of Guangde County Public Security Bureau, it can be confirmed that the cause of death of Jin X is "heart rupture and death caused by chest sharp instrument injury."
Obviously, the steel pipe held by Han XX is blunt, not sharp. Second, Han XX hit the victim's back, not his chest. Therefore, no matter from the injury equipment or the injury site, the cause of death of Jin X is not from the steel pipe hit by Han XX, but from the injury behavior carried out by others.
So what are the consequences of Han XX's "hitting the back with a steel pipe"? The record in the forensic autopsy certificate is: "The long contusion belt on the back conforms to the formation of clubbed fingers."
Judging from the forensic identification, the back contusion did not reach serious injury or minor injury, which did not promote the death of the victim. Therefore, from the perspective of injury consequences, Han XX's steel pipe beating behavior does not belong to intentional injury, but belongs to general beating behavior and should be punished by public security.
In a word, Kim X's death was not caused by Han XX.
Perhaps the prosecutor will make the following rebuttal. Although Han XX's behavior did not directly cause the death consequences of Jin XX, Han XX's behavior helped the accomplice Lou XX's injury behavior, thus * * * caused the death consequences of the victim. Han XX and Lou XX belong to the same crime.
In this regard, the defender believes that the so-called "* * * has criminal behavior" means that when each criminal commits a crime, his criminal activities are interrelated and coordinated with each other, and each criminal activity is a necessary component of the criminal result, and there is a causal relationship with the criminal result. In this case, if Han XX's behavior really helped and cooperated in the process of Lou XX stabbing Jin X with a dagger, then Han XX undoubtedly belongs to the aiding crime and constitutes the crime of intentional injury. But the question is: is Han XX's behavior implemented at the same time as Lou XX's? If not, what help will it have?
It is clearly stated in the indictment that the course of this case is: "20 1 165438, at 2 o'clock in the morning of February 22, the defendant Lou XX had a dispute with the victim Jin X in the rented house next door to the Blue Giant Internet Cafe in Guangde County, and Lou XX and the defendant Han XX (a friend of Lou XX) chased Jin X with a knife and Jin X fled the scene. On the way back to the rental house, the latter two defendants met Jin X near Gate 2 in the backyard of Huadong Hotel. Lou XX quarreled with Jin X again, and then they got into a fight. Lou XX stabbed Jin X several times in the head, face and chest, causing Jin X to fall to the ground. When Han XX returned to the scene, he saw Jin X fall to the ground, so he hit him on the back with a steel pipe several times. After the incident, the two defendants fled the scene and X died after being rescued by the hospital. "
The events alleged in the indictment are basically correct, but it is not clear that when the two defendants met Jin X on their way back to the rental house, Han XX was not at the scene, while Lou XX and Jin X met at the scene. Otherwise, how could Han XX return to the scene? Defenders believe that this detail needs to be emphasized, because it is very important for whether Han XX constitutes a crime.
The above statement of the indictment can be divided into three stages:
The first stage-Lou XX and Han XX chased Jin X, and Jin X escaped.
The second stage-Lou XX and Jin X meet again, from quarreling to fighting to Lou XX stabbing Jin X to the ground.
The third stage-Han XX returned to the scene, picked up the steel pipe and hit Jin X on the back several times.
In the first stage, Lou and Han intentionally injured, but the injury was not carried out because Jin X escaped. It stands to reason that if Jin X didn't return to the scene, the bloody case wouldn't have happened, but the premise is that in fact Jin X was not convinced and returned to the scene with a steel pipe in his hand, so there was a second stage, and everyone knew about it. As stated in the indictment, the two men quarreled again and then fought. Lou XX stabbed Jin X several times in the head, face and chest, causing Jin X to fall to the ground. Please note that in the second stage, Han XX was not on the scene and did not participate in the one-on-one fight between the two. It stands to reason that if Han XX did not return to the scene later, it might have nothing to do with Han XX, but Han XX returned to the scene, so there was a third stage. As stated in the indictment, when Han XX returned to the scene, he saw Jin X fall to the ground and hit him several times on the back with a steel pipe.
From the above three stages, it can be seen that the behavior leading to the death of the victim occurred in the second stage, but Han XX did not participate in the second stage. Han XX's behavior occurred in the third stage, and the victim was stabbed in the third stage, so the injury that led to the victim's death has occurred, and the consequences of death are imminent and inevitable. At the same time, the procuratorate has no evidence to prove that Han XX's steel pipe hitting behavior aggravated or promoted the death consequences.
If you still can't understand, you can give a popular case. After A killed B, he left the body in the wilderness. C passed by and found B's body. Because of his enmity with B, he kicked B's body several times. Does C constitute intentional homicide or intentional injury?
To sum up, this defender believes that Han XX's beating behavior and the knife wound that caused the victim's death were not carried out at the same time, so it was not helpful. The general beating behavior of Han XX should be evaluated separately. Judging from the consequences of this general beating behavior, there is no causal relationship with the victim's death result, so it does not constitute the crime of intentional injury.
On the premise that Han XX does not constitute the crime of intentional injury, this defender does not need to express other defense opinions to the court, so it was passed on. These opinions include: 1, the victim returned to the scene with a steel pipe and was obviously at fault in the duel with Lou Jie Jun; 2. This case is caused by daily trifles and the improper handling of contradictions by both sides. It is a temporary passion crime, and the subjective malignancy and social harm of the two defendants are relatively small; 3. Han XX has no criminal record and usually behaves well. Since the defense focus is not on these points, the defender will not elaborate on them.
The presiding judge, judges and defenders deeply regret this bloody case that should not have happened. As lawyers, we deeply hope that the tragedy similar to this case will not happen again, and we also hope that the court can fully consider the specific circumstances of this case, give the defendant a fair and reasonable judgment, and let the legal balance shine with the light of justice!
Defender: Anhui Xuanguang Law Firm.
Lawyer? Luo Yongsheng
20 12 July 19