Case Introduction At 8 o'clock on October 24th, 2005/KLOC-0, the defendant Xiong had an argument with Anhui migrant workers Chen Moumou and Su Moumou who were working on the third floor of Building 12 in Yujiayang Community, Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province. Chen and others rushed from the third floor to the top platform of the underground garage between buildings 12 and 13, and scuffled with the bear. The bear was beaten by several people and caused head bleeding. The defendant Peng, who works in Building 13, picked up a kitchen knife from the temporary dormitory in the underground garage of Building 13 and rushed to the scene. Other Anhui people who participated in the fight saw it and fled to 12 building. Xiong hugged Chen Mou, and Peng cut Chen Mou's head and buttocks three times with a kitchen knife, and cut Fang Yuanya's right wrist. Chen broke free from the bear and fled to building 12. Peng and Xiong chased into 12 building and fled the scene. Chen moumou fell from the semi-platform on the second floor of an indoor staircase in 12 building to the concrete floor on the first floor, and was sent to the hospital for rescue and died. Eventually, severe craniocerebral injury and hemorrhagic shock were caused by sharp instrument cutting and falling, and he died after being rescued. The victim Fang Yuanya suffered minor injuries to his right wrist. In the investigation stage, the two defendants confessed that they saw the victim Chen Mou on the third floor of Building 12, and Chen Mou rolled himself to the second floor and a half platform. The two defendants and Xiong's younger brother Xiong Dashuang jointly lifted the victim and threw it to the first floor. However, in the stage of review and prosecution, both defendants and Xiong Dashuang overturned their previous confessions and denied throwing the victim to the first floor.
The first-instance judgment of Huzhou Intermediate People's Court found the defendants Peng and Xiong guilty of intentional injury, sentenced Peng to life imprisonment, deprived of political rights for life, and sentenced Xiong to five years in prison. After the verdict was pronounced, the Huzhou Municipal People's Procuratorate protested that the trial was decisive and the two defendants constituted the crime of intentional homicide rather than intentional injury. Zhejiang Higher People's Court held a hearing, and this lawyer, as Peng's appointed defender, defended Peng in court.
Focus of controversy
The focus of the dispute in this case lies in: 1. Whether the defendants Peng and Xiong constitute the crime of intentional homicide or intentional injury. Second, whether the defendant Xiong constitutes an accessory. Third, whether the sentencing in the first instance is appropriate.
The public prosecution agency believes that from the on-site inspection record, the defendant's confession, witness testimony and other aspects, the two defendants and the defendant Xiong's younger brother Xiong Dashuang saw Chen on the third floor of Building 12, pushed him down and crushed him to the second floor and then carried him to the concrete floor on the first floor, so the two defendants killed the victim, which constituted a crime of intentional homicide.
The defender believes that the two defendants have previously confessed to throwing the victim to the first floor, but the defendants now deny throwing. There is no record of the defendant's throwing behavior in the transcript of the on-site inspection. The prosecutor concluded from the on-site inspection that the defendant's throwing behavior was subjective reasoning and there was no direct evidence. In the witness testimony, none of the witnesses saw the defendant throw the victim down. Therefore, the public prosecution agency accused the defendant of intentional homicide. The victim Anhui migrant workers have an unshirkable responsibility for the occurrence of this case. Defendant Peng is a first-time offender and an occasional offender. After he was brought to justice, he pleaded guilty and showed remorse, so the original judgment should be upheld.
Trial judgment
After trial, the court of second instance held that the fact that the defendants Peng and Xiong committed the crime of intentional injury was confirmed by the witness testimony of the victim Fang Yuanya, the on-site inspection record, the forensic corpse, the living body, the DNA test report, the extracted weapon kitchen knife and other evidence. The two defendants also confessed separately, and the evidence can confirm each other. The protest organ believes that the death of the victim was caused by many factors such as knife cutting and falling from the building. Whether the victim's falling from the building is related to the defendant's behavior cannot be confirmed. The reason for the protest organ to request a revision of the crime of intentional homicide cannot be established.
The bear hugged Chen, which made Peng cut Chen. Xiong played an important role in the crime of * * * *, and the protest organ thought that Xiong did not constitute an accomplice and adopted it.
2. The defendant constitutes the crime of intentional injury, and the circumstances of the crime are serious and should be punished according to law. However, in view of the fact that the cause of this case is a civil dispute and the victim is at fault in the cause, the two defendants can be given a lighter punishment. Peng's second-instance defender demanded that Peng's original judgment be upheld, and the reasons why the protest organ and the prosecutor in court demanded heavier sentencing for Xiong were established and adopted.
The Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province ruled that the sentencing part of the defendant Xiong in the original judgment was revoked and other parts were maintained. Defendant Xiong was convicted of intentional injury and sentenced to 11 years in prison.
Classical analysis
After accepting the entrustment of the defendant Peng, our lawyer immediately consulted the copy of the evidence materials in this case and met with the defendant Peng. This paper makes a comprehensive analysis of the evidence materials, and analyzes and responds to the reasons that the prosecution may put forward one by one.
The lawyer noticed several key issues in this case: First, no witness saw the defendant's behavior towards the victim in 12 building. Second, the defendant confessed in the investigation organ and threw the victim from the second floor to the first floor. However, in the stage of examination and prosecution, the defendant retracted his confession, saying that the initial confession was made under the guidance of extorting a confession by torture. Third, the cause of this case is a civil dispute, and the victims and other Anhui migrant workers beat people first, which is at fault. Fourth, the defendant was originally a migrant worker, with no criminal record and less subjective malice.
During the trial, the public prosecutor mainly analyzed a lot of evidence of the case and demanded conviction and punishment according to the crime of intentional homicide. However, the lawyer grasped the key point, that is, although there are a lot of inferences and the defendant's confession is contradictory, there is no definite evidence to prove that the defendant has thrown. And the most crucial point: when the witness who directly witnessed the victim Chen lying on the second floor and a half platform of Building 12 saw the victim, Chen Zheng was lying alone on the second floor and a half, with no one around. Chen remained motionless, his head resting on the edge of the platform, half suspended. According to the defendant's confession, the prosecutor believed that the defendant saw the victim on the third floor, pushed him to the second floor and a half, and then the defendant lifted him and threw him to the first floor. There is a contradiction here. The witness did not see the defendant when he saw the victim, but if the defendant carried out continuous actions such as pushing and throwing, he would be seen by the witness, that is, when the witness saw the victim on the second floor and a half, the defendant should also be present. This contradiction leads to the contradiction between witness testimony and defendant's confession. If the witness's testimony is true, the defendant's confession must be false. If the witness's testimony is false, the defendant's confession is true. However, the defendant's confession cannot be used as the basis for conviction and sentencing alone, and there is no evidence to prove that the witness testimony may be false. The lawyer emphatically analyzed and expounded this point in his defense, and the judge also noticed it, so he didn't find that the defendant was throwing, which played a key role in the characterization of the case.
From this case, it can be concluded that evidence is the most important in criminal trial, and the evidence that plays a key role in qualitative sentencing and the mutual confirmation of evidence are the key. The lawyer's role is to find out the truth in the evidence and take the real facts as the basis for conviction and sentencing, which should also be the criterion that every legal person should follow.