Becoming a lawyer starts with raising a Xiezhi

Chapter 234 The First Instance Judgment Was Wrong

Although Zheng Yihong, as a court prosecutor, is not as active as the public prosecutor in the first trial, she is not actively seeking to send the defendant to prison, but she can't just watch the judgment of the first trial being overturned, so she has to take action and try her best to maintain the judgment of the first trial .

Seeing that the purpose of Meng Lang's questioning was to overthrow the original characterization of the first instance, and to convince the judge of the second instance that Wang was only at fault, not intentional, she could not easily let Meng Lang succeed.

When she asked this question, Wang did not know how to answer, he would not understand what was intentional directly or indirectly, anyway, he only knew that he had no intention of killing Wu.

Seeing Zheng Yihong's question, Meng Lang protested: "The prosecutor who appeared in court is making subjective assumptions. The appellant never wanted to kill Wu. At the same time, Wu's death is of no benefit to him. To say that Wu is dead Yes, he objected or not. This lawyer believes that it is not whether Wu has the subjective mentality of killing others. Subjectively speaking, we will all object to the death of others. Basic emotions, but if you say you don’t object, it’s okay, because birth, old age, sickness and death are objective laws, and you can’t object to objective laws, right? Therefore, the key to this case is whether the appellant has adopted a laissez-faire or hopeful attitude towards Wu’s death, That's the focus of this case."

Although he was familiar with Zheng Yihong, Meng Lang was still unceremonious in court. The judge couldn't help but nodded after hearing his words: "The appellant's defender is right. The focus of this case is the appellant's role in this case." Whether the crime is intentional or negligent, the next trial will invite the prosecutors and defenders to present evidence, cross-examine and debate on this issue."

After the judge finished speaking in this way, Zheng Yihong took a look at Meng Lang, thinking that Meng Lang was indeed very dedicated to his work, and he had worked hard on a second-instance case.

After the two parties finished asking questions, they entered the court for investigation. Since the evidence had already been cross-examined in the first instance, the court investigation of the second instance was much simpler. The judge asked both parties if they had any new evidence to submit?

Meng Lang said no, and neither did the prosecutor. However, Meng Lang proposed to put forward some new opinions on the evidence of the first trial. The judge listened and asked him to state it together in the court debate part, and there was no need to express opinions in the court investigation part.

Soon after entering the courtroom debate, Meng Lang focused on the focus of the case and first expressed his defense opinion: "The appellant met the victim Wu through WeChat for half a year and dated after half a year. There was no conflict between the two parties before, and there was no dispute during the date. The two parties came out on a date in order to seek life stimulation. The appellant did not have the subjective intention of killing the victim. First of all, we can rule out the fact that Wang directly and intentionally killed Wu. He will be sentenced to three years in prison.

Secondly, did the appellant commit indirect intentional homicide?The defender believed that he was not guilty of indirect intentional homicide either. Indirect intention was a kind of intention of inaction. Although he did not actively pursue it, he adopted a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results. It was very similar to the negligence of overconfidence. The two are easy to confuse, but the difference between the two lies in his attitude towards the harmful result. The indirect intentional attitude is that the harmful result has happened, which is not a bad thing for me, while the overconfident and negligent attitude is, Harmful results have occurred. For me, this is unacceptable. Therefore, it comes down to this case. Regarding Wu's death, is the appeal acceptable or unacceptable?

The subjective attitude of the parties cannot rely on us to subjectively speculate, or to use evidence to speak.During the process of Wu’s death, the appellant did have unforgivable mistakes. He did not realize the seriousness of the problem for a long time, which made Wu’s condition aggravated and he died. However, since the appellant finally sent Wu to According to the situation of going to the hospital for treatment, the result of Wu's death is unacceptable to him. If he has a laissez-faire mentality, he can walk away after having a relationship with Wu, and then tell us that he At that time, nothing unusual about Wu was found. If so, how can it be determined that he had the intention to kill?The fact that the appellant stayed with the victim all the time shows that he did not have the intention to kill. His negligence and slow response really make people feel suspicious, but doubts are suspicions. If we find that he has an indirect intention to kill, we must Sufficient evidence is needed to prove it, but now we have not seen such evidence, and it is logically impossible to determine that the appellant had an indirect intention to kill, so the judgment of the first instance was wrong, and the crime of negligent death should be charged. Pursuant to the appellant's criminal responsibility, instead of identifying him as intentional homicide. "

After Meng Lang finished speaking in this way, the judge nodded, and then looked at Zheng Yihong, who would express her opinion as a prosecutor in court.

At this time, Zheng Yihong actually realized that there was indeed something wrong with the first-instance judgment, and it was a bit far-fetched to determine that Wang committed murder intentionally. The sentencing is appropriate, and the appellant's appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment upheld. The appellant ignored the victim's serious condition for more than ten hours, and did not send him to the hospital until he found that the victim was cold. The doctor obviously had the subjective intention of letting the victim die, so he was determined to have committed the murder intentionally, which was in line with the facts of the case. If he was negligent, then his negligence reached the point of being mentally abnormal. However, the appellant was actually mentally ill. It is normal and there is no mental illness, so the appellant's defense is untenable."

Zheng Yihong made such an opinion in court. After she finished speaking, the judge asked Meng Lang if he had any new opinions. Meng Lang said, "It is true that the appellant has no mental problems and his intelligence is normal, but we also saw at the scene that the appellant's physical condition He was very obese, and when he first discovered the problem, the victim's condition was not serious. He just said that he thought it was the reaction after the two had a relationship, and the defender believed that his statement was in line with the reality of the scene.

Later, after discovering that the victim was incontinent, it was already night. At this time, the appellant had a fluke mentality and thought that the victim still had no big problem and continued to sleep. There was indeed a lot of negligence in this, but he was not looking for death. If he didn’t save him, if he was aware that the victim might die and he didn’t care about it, then he wouldn’t have stayed at the scene. If we realized that a person was going to die, would we stay with him under normal circumstances? ?Since it is to be determined that he committed intentional homicide, it must be established that the appellant had realized that Wu would die. However, based on Wu’s injuries, it was impossible for the appellant to realize that she would die. Therefore, the first instance judgment found that he committed intentional homicide. Killing is wrong. "

(End of this chapter)