Criminal trial reference No. 910: Lu Hua’s Intentional Homicide Case-How to distinguish the crime of

1. Defendant Lu Hua, male, born on August 24, 1963, was the chairman of Dongxin Pawn Shop Co., Ltd., Rudong County, Jiangsu Province. On April 24, 2010, he was arrested on suspicion of a targeted traffic accident. The People’s Procuratorate of Nantong City, Jiangsu Province filed an indictment with the Intermediate People’s Court of Nantong City for defendant Lu Hua’s intentional homicide. Defendant Lu Hua and his defender pointed out that Lu Hua’s actions did not constitute intentional homicide, which was subjectively negligent as an alternative to indirect intentional, and ought to be characterized as a crime of traffic accident; Lu Hua had surrendered the plot and actively compensated the victim’s relatives for loss. Decrease or decrease the punishment. The public trial from the Intermediate People’s Court of Nantong City revealed that at 20:40 on April 17, 2010, the defendant Lu Hua drunk driving a Buick with license plate quantity Su F36X68, driving from south to north to Rudong County, Nantong City In the north end from the South Gate Bridge of Renmin Road in Digang Town, the victim struck Shenmou (female, aged 45) who was riding in the identical path, causing Shenmou to fall in front on the vehicle. Following Lu Hua stopped, he was investigated for fear of driving beneath the influence of alcohol, disregarding the calls and restraints of many passers-by, and started the car to move forward, dragging Shen Mou who was sitting in front of the auto as well as the bicycle he was riding below the body with the vehicle. Lu Hua clearly felt that there was resistance below the automobile and accompanied by metal friction sound, and realized that there might be an individual below the automobile and still didn't stop. She towed Shen and her bicycle for a lot more than 150 meters until the ideal wheel of the car or truck rushed towards the roadside to isolate Only when she brought it, she and her bike were thrown away in the body. Later Lu Hua continued to drive away in the scene. One of the victims died of traumatic shock because of serious head injury and died the subsequent day after rescue. After identification, Lu Hua's blood alcohol content was 163 mg/100 ml, and he was inside a drunk state. Following the incident, Lu Hua filed a case with the public security organ and compensated the victim for financial losses of RMB 530,000. The victim issued a letter of understanding.

The Nantong Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendant Lu Hua braked following hitting the victim for the initial time, but forcibly evaded drunk driving and forced to escape. Lu Hua knew that the car could hit the victim once again when he ran away, and just after the car or truck began, he felt that the vehicle encountered apparent resistance, heard the harsh metal friction sound, as well as a quantity of passers-by shouted to it, at this time he was totally aware of the victim It may be beneath his auto, irrespective of the consequences, driving for more than 100 meters, and ultimately the victim was dragged and squeezed to death. Lu Hua's laissez-faire attitude towards the consequences in the victim's death is quite clear, and the kind of his crime needs to be determined to be indirect and intentional. Accordingly, in accordance with all the provisions of Post 232 and Paragraph 1 of Article 57 with the Criminal Law in the People’s Republic of China, the Intermediate People’s Court of Nantong City sentenced the defendant Lu Hua to intentional homicide and sentenced him to life imprisonment and deprivation of politics. Ideal for life. After the verdict was pronounced inside the 1st instance, the defendant Lu Hua refused to accept and appealed towards the Jiangsu Greater People's Court. The Jiangsu Higher People’s Court held that the appellant Lu Hua was driving within a drunken driving accident. In an effort to keep away from the punishment, he forced to escape by driving and dragged the victim to the bottom of your car to death. The act of illegally depriving others’ lives has constituted intentional homicide. It need to be severely punished based on law. Soon after the case, Lu Hua committed the crime and actively compensated the injured celebration for financial losses. In home page with law, he may very well be provided a lighter punishment. The original sentence convicted Lu Hua accurately, sentenced appropriately, plus the trial process was legal. Accordingly, the Jiangsu Greater People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

2. The main query is how you can distinguish involving the crime of targeted traffic accident and the (indirect) intentional homicide in the case of death caused by drunk driving?

3. Causes for refereeing In judicial practice, the circumstance of a website traffic accident attributable to a perpetrator's drunk driving is a lot more complicated. It qualitatively includes the crime of targeted traffic accident, crime of endangering public safety by dangerous strategies, and intentional murder. Even though the cause and effect are each of the consequences on the death from the victim resulting from drunk driving, the conviction and sentencing may be various in every single case as a consequence of the particular case. Slightly carelessness may well arouse people's consideration and public opinion controversy, as well as result in the people's court's associated trial operate to turn into passive. This case is such a case. You'll find two various opinions in the trial method: A single opinion is that the defendant Lu Hua was drunk driving and his cognitive capability was impacted by alcohol. Right after a site visitors accident, he did not realize that the victim was dragged into the car. Inside the following, it includes a fault for the victim’s death as opposed to an indirect intentional subjective crime; its behavior constitutes a crime of traffic accident. In line with yet another opinion, even though Lu Hua was a drunk driver, in accordance with the scene, he was in a position to recognize the consequences of your victim being dragged below the vehicle and continuing to drive may perhaps outcome inside the death from the victim. Occurs, with indirect intentional subjective sins, and its actions constitute intentional homicide. The actor's drunk driving causes death. The behavior constitutes a crime of visitors accident or intentional homicide. hard drive recovery can be much easier to distinguish in theory. The basic principle is: the actor's laissez-faire attitude towards the outcome on the victim's death constitutes intentional homicide; Opposition and negation in will constitute a crime of site visitors accident. Nonetheless, in practice, it can be tough to distinguish regardless of whether the perpetrator's subjective will is laissez-faire or opposed, and adverse attitudes, which generally results in different qualitative understandings of cases of drunk driving causing death. The cause why this case produces the above-mentioned distinct opinions lies inside the difficulty in figuring out the accused Lu Hua's subjective crimes. For the actor’s negligence in a site visitors accident, in order to evade legal investigations, the victim was taken away in the scene of the accident and hidden or abandoned, resulting within the victim’s inability to have enable and died, because he has committed site visitors accidents and took the victim away from the scene of the accident to hide Or the behavior of abandonment clearly reflects that his subjective guilt has changed from a negligent website traffic accident to hope or letting the fatal a single die, and thus constitutes no crime of intentional homicide. But right after the perpetrator knocked down the victim, he drove, crushed, and dragged the victim to escape in the scene, causing the victim to die. Because of the continuity of his behavior, it occurred even though continuing to drive. Drunk driving, recognition potential and control capability are affected by alcohol to varying degrees, irrespective of whether it could recognize traffic accidents and collision, crushing, dragging the victim when continuing to drive, it is actually more tough to determine in practice, and then have an effect on To characterize their behavior. For this predicament, it truly is essential to comprehensively analyze the subjective will state with the actor in combination with the distinct circumstances of your targeted traffic accident, the actor's drunkenness, as well as the atmosphere at the scene. As far as this case is concerned, we agree using the latter opinion, that Lu Hua was allowed to let the victim die soon after the traffic accident, and that his act constituted intentional homicide. data recovery software are as follows: (1) The defendant has committed two acts, namely, the visitors accident and also the driving and dragging the victim right after the accident. The act of causing the victim to die. One of the key points of distinguishing involving website traffic accident and intentional murder would be to judge the perpetrator to commit Is often a site visitors accident an act or perhaps a targeted traffic accident and intentional homicide (making use of transportation as a tool for deliberate homicide, except for a homicide)? In this case, many witnesses at the scene confirmed that after Lu Hua drove into the victim who was riding the bicycle inside the same direction, the victim was not seriously injured because of wearing a helmet, and then sat up following falling to the ground. Lu Hua stopped abruptly after stopping for any though, and rammed the victim: the victim and his bicycle had been dragged below the car and dragged for a lot more than 150 meters. The victim plus the bicycle were only rushed up the roadside isolation zone. The bicycle is thrown away in the automobile physique. Later Lu Hua continued to drive away in the scene. The autopsy opinion confirmed that the victim died of serious head injury combined with traumatic shock, along with the left head-face injury was formed throughout friction with the road surface. The above situation shows that Lu Hua's drunk driving and knocking down the victim was only a common targeted traffic accident, and also the victim was not seriously injured. Immediately after the visitors accident occurred, Lu Hua stopped driving on the brakes. At this time, the targeted traffic accident has been completed. If Lu Hua stops driving, the behavior of the victim is only a visitors accident that violates the administrative law with no the victim becoming seriously injured. Even when the victim is seriously injured, the behavior only constitutes a crime of visitors accident. But given that then, Lu Hua has implemented the behavior of beginning the vehicle to drive forward and dragging the victim. The latter behavior is independent from the preceding behavior and straight results in the death on the victim. It need to be evaluated separately from the criminal law. (two) The defendant takes a laissez-faire attitude towards the victim’s death result as an alternative to objection and denies on the subjective will. Yet another significant point to distinguish the crime of traffic accident from intentional homicide would be to judge whether or not the perpetrator can recognize the nature of his behavior (which is, to recognize State), then ascertain the actor's state of will (indulgence or opposition, adverse attitude). For drunk drivers, it is essential to judge the degree of recognition and manage capability affected by alcohol, specially if the perpetrator has carried out two acts of website traffic accident and murder, it really is essential to decide no matter if the perpetrator has know-how of his killing behavior. Within this case, the accused Lu Hua was drunk while driving, and his blood alcohol content was 163 mg/100 ml, but from his behavior and confession, his ability to recognize and manage was not severely affected by alcohol, and he was able to recognize For the nature of its behavior, along with the subsequent behavior is depending on the analysis and judgment on the prior behavior. It can be particularly reflected within the following plots: (1) When Lu Hua crashed in to the victim, he took emergency braking measures and stopped to get a moment. He also confessed that a person outdoors the vehicle said that he had hit the person, since he was afraid of driving when drinking. The punishment was extreme and he wanted to escape by driving. He didn't get out from the car to verify it, nor did he reverse gear. He just turned the steering wheel to the right to drive forward, indicating that he had realized that he had drunk driving behavior and had consequences. If Lu Hua did not totally understand the consequences from the accident, stepping on the brakes only brought on him to hit the victim's driving instinct. Even when he then drove forward, he couldn't judge his consciousness about the consequences with the murder. (two) On the basis of getting a particular understanding on the consequences with the accidents attributable to drunk driving, Lu Hua empowered him to continue driving and dragging the victim, which may perhaps bring about the death in the victim. Lu Hua confessed that when the car began, he heard an individual calling and said that he had hit someone. When he elevated the throttle and opened it forward, he felt that the automobile encountered clear resistance and was quite heavy. It was essential to improve the throttle to move about and listen. Towards the strange sound, like iron dragging on the ground. He turned the steering wheel to the correct and wanted to throw away the hit. After the auto was put around the gardening belt of Ludong, there was no sense of weight and strange noise. The confession was confirmed by many witnesses at the scene confirming that the vehicle was dragging the victim and his bicycle having a harsh metal friction sound, as well as the masses shouted 'parking' and 'someone under the car', indicating that Lu Hua was according to the driving status of your car or truck With all the shouts of the masses, it truly is attainable to understand that the “things” dragged below the automobile are most likely the victims and their bicycles, but they fled the scene as quickly as you possibly can without asking for evidence, letting the consequences of your hazards take place, or even the “things” 'Throw away and drive the car towards the roadside barrier. This state of will no matter the victim's life and death is in line together with the indirect deliberate psychological traits. In summary, just after the defendant Lu Hua committed a targeted traffic accident, in an effort to evade the legal investigation, he knew that there was a foreign object getting dragged below the car. Continued driving may result in the death from the victim, and continued to drive to escape, letting this kind of harm The result occurred and ultimately led towards the death on the victim. The subsequent behavior was indirect intentional homicide, which constituted the crime of intentional homicide. In the very same time, in line with the criminal law principle that the latter act absorbs the initial act plus the heavy act absorbs the lesser act, Lu Hua can be punished with 1 crime, as well as the Nantong Intermediate People's Court is appropriate to punish the crime with intentional homicide.