Directed by Zhang Yimou, starring Lei Jiayin, Ma Li, etc., and produced by the Film and Television Center of the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the film "Article 20" was released nationwide at the beginning of the Lunar New Year and became a blockbuster Chinese New Year film for the Spring Festival of the Year of the Dragon. Five years ago, Liu Tao, a lawyer at Chushang Law Firm, also had a case of intentional injury caused by a meat cleaver. In accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the Criminal Law, the person concerned was finally found to be justified in self-defense and acquitted.
The time of the incident
November 2, 2018.
The location of the crime
A vegetable market in Hubei.
Basic facts of the case
The suspect (defender, female) and the victim (wrongdoer, male) are competitors in the same wet market. On the day of the crime, the two sides had a verbal altercation over trivial matters, and the victim was angry and swung a fly swatter (some say rattan) at the face of the suspect who was cutting meat with a knife. Subsequently, the two sides became entangled, and the victim pressed the suspect down on the meat cutting table of the shop, and was about to take the meat cutting knife from the suspect's hand. In the process of struggling, the suspect was thrown to the ground, and the meat cleaver in his hand that was not taken away came into contact with the victim's forehead (whether it was a mistake or the suspect actively stabbed, the main evidence contradicts each other). It was determined that the victim's forehead injury was a second-degree minor injury. After the incident, the suspect was detained for 40 days. In desperation, in order to let the suspect go home for the New Year as soon as possible, during the investigation by the public security organs, the family squeezed out more than 100,000 yuan and obtained the victim's forgiveness.
**Situation
After the case was reviewed and prosecuted by the procuratorate, lawyer Chu Shang served as the defender of the criminal suspect and put forward a defense opinion of innocence, the main reasons are: first, whether it was a mistake or a stabbing, the main evidence contradicted each other, and the evidence for conviction was not reliable and sufficient; Secondly, the timing of the identification of the second degree of minor injury did not meet the identification criteria. At that time, both the defender and the suspect thought about defending themselves in legitimate self-defense, but the premise of justifiable defense was that the suspect had indeed stabbed him. However, the stabbing wound was still touched by mistake, the evidence was insufficient, and he violated his confession that he was not a stab wound in the investigating agency, and at this time he admitted that it was a stabbing wound, and it was difficult for the procuratorate not to prosecute. All things considered, the lack of evidence is still used as the justification for the defense of innocence, and the justifiable defense is the final compromise.
Even so, the procuratorate did not adopt the lawyer's arguments, insisted that it constituted a crime, prosecuted it for intentional injury, and recommended an eight-month prison sentence.
On December 5, 2019, after the case was brought to court, the defender applied for the appearance of witnesses with inconsistent testimony on the one hand, and a re-appraisal on the other. On August 18, 2020, the procuratorate withdrew the indictment, citing a change in evidence.
After withdrawing the indictment, the procuratorate proposed a plan not to prosecute "the circumstances of the crime were minor", but neither the criminal suspect nor the defender accepted it. In the end, the procuratorate proposed that legitimate defense, not a crime, should not be prosecuted. However, it is still inconsistent with the facts believed by the parties, who always believe that they did not take the initiative to stab the other party. Considering that justifiable self-defense is legally defined and the risk of criminalization is removed, even if the evidence is sufficient to prove that the stabbing was intentional, it is not a crime, and it will not be pursued for criminal liability, and it will not affect the person's application for state compensation. The parties eventually accepted the justifiable defense and did not prosecute.
Case follow-up
The local procuratorates at the two levels decided to reconsider and compensate the defender for his personal freedom, eliminate the impact, restore his reputation, and make a formal apology, but did not compensate for the moral damages. On August 4, 2021, the Compensation Committee of the local Intermediate People's Court decided to revoke the compensation decision and reconsideration decision of the procuratorates at the two levels, and increase the compensation item, i.e., the solatium for mental damages.
The unlawful aggressor was dissatisfied with the procuratorate's decision not to prosecute, and initiated a private prosecution against the defender for the crime of intentional injury, and the court of first instance found that the defender was justified and not guilty. On November 29, 2022, the court of second instance rejected the wrongdoer's appeal and upheld the original judgment.
The court of first instance ruled in favor of the defender for all the compensation received when suing the wrongdoer for issuing a letter of understanding on the grounds of unjust enrichment. On January 16, 2023, the court of second instance rejected the appeal of the wrongdoer and upheld the original judgment.
About the Author:
Liu Tao is a lawyer
Master of Laws from China University of Political Science and Law, senior partner of Hubei Chushang Law Firm, he has been engaged in the profession of lawyer since 2009, and loves to pay attention to and think about related practical difficulties.