After Lu's death, his relatives and neighbors handled the funeral for him under the melon shed in front of the door and found that some of the pulled loofahs had small black spots (the neighbors were tall! ), he suspected that others were poisoning, so he reported the case to the public security organ. After investigation, Chen Meijuan was captured.
Two. According to the verdict, Nantong Intermediate People's Court held that the defendant Chen Meijuan had a quarrel with the victim, and deliberately put methamidophos pesticide in the towel gourd planted by the victim, which endangered public safety and caused two people to be poisoned, and one of them died, which constituted the crime of putting dangerous substances. Chen Meijuan pleaded guilty after being brought to justice, and may be given a lighter punishment as appropriate. Chen Meijuan should compensate the plaintiff in the incidental civil action for the economic losses suffered by his criminal acts. The defendant and his defender argued that the death of the victim was not necessarily caused by the defendant taking methamidophos. It was found through trial that the victim was diabetic hyperosmotic coma and hypokalemia caused by organophosphorus poisoning and died under the combined action of two factors. Without the poisoning behavior of the defendant, there would be no death of the victim. Therefore, this argument and defense reasons were not adopted. According to Article 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment (III) of People's Republic of China (PRC), Paragraph 1 of Article 115, Paragraph 1 of Article 48, Paragraph 2 of Article 57 and Article 36 of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), and Article 119 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), 2002,65438+.
1. Defendant Chen Meijuan was convicted of throwing dangerous substances, sentenced to death, suspended for two years, and deprived of political rights for life.
2. The defendant compensated the plaintiff for medical expenses and transportation expenses of 269.20 yuan, the victim's land rescue expenses and transportation expenses of 65,438 yuan+0,535.20 yuan, and the funeral expenses of 3,000 yuan, totaling 4,804.40 yuan.
3. Reject other claims of plaintiff in incidental civil action.
After the judgment of the first instance was announced, the defendant Chen Meijuan and the plaintiff in the incidental civil action did not appeal, and the procuratorate did not protest. Nantong Intermediate People's Court reported the case to Jiangsu Higher People's Court for approval.
Three. Controversy focus (1) How should the defendant Chen Meijuan characterize the behavior that the victim injected pesticides into the towel gourd planted outdoors, endangering others' lives? ■ In this case, the defendant Chen Meijuan injected pesticides into the loofah planted in the victim's outdoor homestead for the purpose of intentional homicide. There is a dispute between the crime of intentional homicide and the crime of throwing dangerous substances.
■ One view is that the defendant poisoned and killed people to vent his personal anger, and the object of infringement was the right to life and health of the specific victim Lu, so this case should be convicted of intentional homicide.
■ Another view is that the defendant put pesticides in the loofah planted by the victim, although at first it was only to kill the victim Lu. However, because Luffa grows outdoors, it is likely to be picked by its relatives and friends or neighboring villagers, or circulated in the market as an agricultural product, endangering unspecified consumers and causing casualties to unspecified majority. The defendant Chen Meijuan's behavior has constituted a danger to social security, and his behavior has constituted the crime of throwing dangerous substances.
The key to distinguish between the two crimes lies in whether the crime violates personal rights or social security, and whether it violates a specific person or an unspecified majority. What needs to be emphasized here is that the uncertainty in the crime of throwing dangerous substances is relative to specificity. The so-called uncertainty does not mean that there is no specific object and goal of crime. Generally speaking, when the crime of throwing dangerous substances is implemented, there are subjective targets, estimation and understanding of the scope of possible damage, and objective targets, but the actual consequences caused or may be caused by its actions are often difficult for criminals to control. (Teacher's comment: See if it can be controlled. If we can perfectly control the way of infringement, it is naturally intentional homicide. If you can't control it, let it go, it is naturally the crime of throwing dangerous substances)
Combined with case analysis: ■ First, with the development of market economy, the self-sufficient natural economy in rural areas has been replaced by the socialist market economy, and all kinds of vegetables and fruits planted by vegetable farmers on homesteads and plots are no longer limited to their own consumption, but exchanged as commodities in the market. Among them, toxic fruits and fruits may flow to the society due to the circulation of agricultural and sideline products, posing a threat to public life safety. The husband of the victim Lu confirmed that he often sent vegetables and fruits such as loofah to the market for sale or gifts to relatives and friends.
■ Secondly, the village where the victim is located in this case, after unified planning, people live in relatively concentrated areas, with frequent exchanges between residents. Before and after the house are open spaces or homesteads, and the vegetables and fruits planted do not rule out being picked by neighbors or used by victims to entertain visitors. This case objectively caused another victim, Huang Jinhua, to be poisoned by playing in the victim's house during the holiday. At the same time, after the death of the victim Lu, before solving the case, the victim's family asked the neighbors to organize the funeral, and the location was under the loofah vine at the crime scene. Some loofahs injected with methamidophos pesticide are also tied to loofah vines, which can be picked by others at any time and eaten by everyone. From the above two points, it can be seen that although the defendant had a clear criminal goal from the beginning, his objective behavior has caused extensive damage and is difficult to control, which conforms to the objective characteristics of the crime of throwing dangerous substances.
■ Thirdly, the above-mentioned objective behavior of the defendant can also show that at the beginning of the defendant's intentional formation, he hoped to directly harm a specific victim, but it was an extremely secret crime to use a disposable syringe to inject pesticides into someone else's outdoor loofah at night, which may not only lead to the poisoning of the specific victim, but also lead to the occurrence of death consequences. The defendant should be aware of this. Therefore, the content of the defendant's subjective intention, because of his laissez-faire attitude towards the expansion of the scope of harm, has undergone a fundamental change in essence, from the initial intentional homicide to the indirect intentional release of dangerous substances, endangering public safety, and poisoning the innocent victim Huang Jinhua. When the life safety of many people who organized the funeral for the victims under the poisonous loofah vine was seriously threatened again, the defendant was on the scene. He did not stop it, but allowed the reality of the dangerous state to exist. Deliberate laissez-faire is very obvious and has the subjective characteristics of the crime of throwing dangerous substances.
■ Furthermore, judging from the defendant's behavior based on the theory of concurrence of laws and regulations, it can also be seen that the defendant threw pesticides at the towel gourd planted outdoors, which caused the loss of the right to life of the specific victim, and at the same time, because of the defendant's psychological attitude of laissez-faire crime, it posed a threat to the unspecified public. His behavior has been consistent with the objective constitution of the crime of intentional homicide and the crime of throwing dangerous substances at the same time, and there is an inclusive relationship between the two objective constitutive elements. According to the general law of the intersection of laws and regulations, this case also absorbed the discretionary rules of some laws.
(2) Is there a causal relationship between the defendant's behavior and the death result of the victim Lu? ■ The victim, Lu, has diabetes, which cannot be a reason to deny the causal relationship between the defendant's poisoning behavior and his death. This is because causality is conditional and concrete. What kind of result an action can produce depends on the specific situation of the action, and there is no fixed model. In short, even if a behavior is not enough to lead to a seemingly abnormal result under normal circumstances, if the abnormal result finally appears because of the special specific circumstances when the behavior occurs, the causal relationship between the behavior and the result cannot be denied on the grounds of the special specific circumstances when the behavior occurs. On the contrary, it should be affirmed that there is a causal relationship between them in the sense of criminal law.
■ It may be easier to illustrate this problem by analogy. In criminal law works, we often see such cases: A was slightly injured, and B bled to death. After investigation, B was a hemophiliac. If we don't consider the circumstances of the fault in the diagnosis and treatment of traditional Chinese medicine hospital in this case for the time being, this case is very similar to the above cases in basic structure. For the above cases, it is generally believed that B's specific physique does not affect the establishment of the causal relationship between A's minor injury behavior and its death result in the sense of criminal law. In view of this, for the same reason, it should also be considered that the causal relationship between the defendant's poisoning behavior and the victim's death result is not affected by the victim's own diabetes. (special physique can't stop causality, eggshell head case, value orientation protects the weak)
■ To determine the factual causal relationship between the defendant's poisoning behavior and the death result, we must first clarify the causal behavior that led to the victim's death. Causal behavior is generally composed of various conditions or elements. Judging from the facts ascertained in this case, it is nothing more than the sum of many basic conditions and elements such as poisoning behavior, improper hospital treatment, and the victim's own disease. The sum of these reasons constitutes the overall cause of factual causality, and many of the above conditions and elements are harmful and related to the harmful consequences of the victim's death. Therefore, there must be a factual causal relationship between the defendant's poisoning behavior and the victim's death. The rise of factual causality to legal causality depends on the value judgment of factual causality in criminal law. Among the above elements of causal behavior, poisoning has obvious social harm objectively and subjectively, and criminal law has made a negative evaluation of it, so the factual causal relationship between poisoning and death results has risen to legal causal relationship and become a real criminal causal relationship. The causal relationship between improper hospital treatment and the victim's own illness and death is of non-criminal significance, and it becomes an inseparable part to intervene in the criminal causal relationship.