According to the surging news, the case of Lao Rongzhi, which has been selected as one of the "Top Ten Cases of the People's Court in 2022" and has been written into the work report of the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court for two consecutive years, has attracted wide attention. On December 18, 2023, in accordance with the execution order issued by the Supreme People's Court, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court executed Lao Rongzhi.
The Paper noted that on February 23, 2024, the Supreme People's Court published the criminal verdict on the review of the death penalty for intentional homicide, kidnapping, and robbery on the China Judgment Document Network, which is nearly 8,000 words in full text, detailing the reasons and basis for the Supreme People's Court to approve Lao Rongzhi's death sentence.
There were 4 cases of robbery, intentional homicide and kidnapping, resulting in a total of 7 deaths.
According to the ruling, the Intermediate People's Court of Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, heard the case of the Nanchang City Procuratorate accusing the defendant Lao Rongzhi of intentional homicide, kidnapping, and robbery, and on September 3, 2021, with the (2020) Gan 01 Xingchu No. 50 Criminal Attached Civil Judgment, found that the defendant Lao Rongzhi committed intentional homicide, sentenced him to death, and deprived him of political rights for life; commits robbery, is sentenced to death, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property; Committed the crime of kidnapping, sentenced to death, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property, and decided to carry out the death penalty, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property.
After the verdict was pronounced, Lo Rongzhi appealed. On November 30, 2022, the Jiangxi High People's Court rejected the appeal, upheld the original judgment, and reported to the Supreme People's Court for approval in accordance with the law with the (2021) Gan Xing Zhong No. 236 Criminal Ruling. During the review by the Supreme Court, the defendant Lao Rongzhi entrusted Wu Danhong, a lawyer from Beijing Youbang Law Firm, and Liu Changsong, a lawyer from Beijing Mugong Law Firm, to provide defense for him. The Supreme People's Court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law, reviewed the case, interrogated the defendant in accordance with the law, and listened to the opinions of the defense lawyer. The Supreme People's Procuratorate has reviewed its opinions. The review has now been completed.
After review, it was confirmed that between 1996 and 1999, the defendant Lao Rongzhi and his lover Fa Ziying (the death penalty has been approved in a separate case) conspired to commit robbery, etc., and that Lao Rongzhi engaged in escort services in entertainment venues, looked for targets for committing crimes, and jointly committed violence with Fa Ziying, robbed other people's property or kidnapped others for extortion. The two jointly committed four cases of robbery, intentional homicide, and kidnapping in Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and Hefei City, Anhui Province, resulting in a total of seven deaths.
The specific facts of Lao Rongzhi's crime, which have been reviewed and confirmed by the Supreme People's Court, are as follows:
Nanchang robbery, intentional homicide facts.
In early June 1996, defendants Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying came to Nanchang City, Jiangxi Province, and rented a place in Nanchang City. Lao Rongzhi, under the pseudonym "Chen Jia", went to Nanchang City to engage in escort services, met the customer Xiong Moujia (victim, male, died at the age of 37), and jointly identified Xiong Moujia as the target of the crime with Fa Ziying. At noon on July 28 of the same year, Lao Rongzhi lured Xiong Moujia to the aforementioned rented residence. Fa Ziying, who was hiding indoors in advance, threatened with a knife, and teamed up with Lao Rongzhi **Xiong Moujia to snatch Xiong Moujia's gold necklace, watch and other belongings and house keys, and coerced Xiong Moujia to tell his home address. Fa Ziying strangled Xiong Moujia to death and divided the body, and put the body pieces into two woven bags and two travel bags. That night, Lao Rongzhi went to Xiong Moujia's house in Donghu District, Nanchang City alone, tried to open the door lock with the stolen house key, and then came to Xiong Moujia's house with a sharp knife with Fa Ziying, cut the ** line at the door of Xiong Moujia's house and the opposite household, and opened the door to enter the house. Fa Ziying used sharp knives, ropes, belts, etc. to control Xiong Moujia's wife Zhang Moujia (victim, died at the age of 28), and Lao Rongzhi rummaged through the room to find property, and robbed watches, jewelry, cash of 8,090 yuan, 110 Hong Kong dollars, 10 US dollars, corporate bonds (face value of 1,000 yuan), bank deposit receipts (amount of 95,000 yuan) and other property. After that, Fa Ziying strangled Zhang Moujia to death with a belt, strangled Xiong Mou B, the daughter of Xiong Mou A (the victim, died at the age of 2), and transferred part of Xiong Mou A's body from his rented residence to Xiong Mou A's house. Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying fled to Fa Ziying's mother's house in Jiujiang City, Jiangxi Province, and handed over the looted property to Fa Ziying's sister Fa for safekeeping, which was later seized by public security officers. The watches, jewelry and other property stolen by the two were worth 30,274 yuan$13.
The above-mentioned facts include the sharp knife, the tool of the crime extracted from the victim Xiong X A's house, the scabbard extracted from the defendant Lao Rongzhi's rented residence, and the recovered watches, jewelry, RMB, Hong Kong dollars, US dollars, corporate bonds, bank deposit receipts and other stolen money and goods, and the criminal verdict and criminal ruling that found that the criminal Fa Ziying and Lao Rongzhi committed this crime and were sentenced in a separate case, and the witnesses Xiong X C, Xiong X Ding, Xiong X E, Qin X, Hu X A, Zhang X , Li X A, Xiong X Ji, Shi X Fa X et al.'s testimony, corpse appraisal opinions, fingerprint appraisal opinions, ** appraisal opinions, on-site inquest, inspection, identification records, criminal Fa Ziying's confession and other evidence corroborate. Defendant Lo Wing-chi also partially confessed. Enough to determine.
Wenzhou robbery, intentional homicide facts.
In September 1997, defendants Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying came to Wenzhou City, Zhejiang Province, where Lao Rongzhi stayed in a hotel in Wenzhou City, and Fa Ziying rented a house. The two followed the above-mentioned mode of committing crimes, and Lao Rongzhi engaged in escort services in a KTV in Wenzhou City, looking for a target for the crime. During the negotiation of subletting housing, Lao Rongzhi and the victim Liang (female, died at the age of 20), who also worked in the KTV, thought that Liang had money, and decided to rob Liang after discussing with Fa Ziying. On the morning of October 10 of the same year, Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying came to Liang's rented residence in the name of renting a house, and Fa Ziying threatened with a knife and collaborated with Lao Rongzhi to use wires, cloth strips and other things** Liang Mou's hands and feet robbed Omega watches, mobile phones and other property. The two forced Liang to beat ** to trick a rich man to come over and continue to commit the robbery, and Liang invited the KTV foreman Liu Moujia (the victim, female, died at the age of 27) to come over on the grounds of physical discomfort. In the meantime, Lu, who also worked at KTV, heard that Liang was sick and came to visit, and Liang sent Lu away under the pretext of an excuse. After Liu Moujia arrived, Fa Ziying threatened with a knife, and teamed up with Lao Rongzhi to use wires, ropes and other things** Liu Moujia robbed mobile phones, bank passbooks and other property, and forced Liu Moujia to tell the passbook password. Fa Ziying stayed at the scene, and Lao Rongzhi took a stolen mobile phone and passbook to the savings house to withdraw 25,750 yuan in cash, and called ** to inform Fa Ziying that the money had been withdrawn, and went to the hotel where he stayed to pack up his things and escape. Fa Ziying strangled Liang and Liu to death with wires and belts.
The above facts are corroborated by the current savings withdrawal receipts obtained through cross-examination in the first-instance and second-instance trials, the criminal verdict and criminal ruling that found that the convict Fa Ziying and the defendant Lao Rongzhi committed this crime and were sentenced in a separate case, the testimony of witnesses Qian X, Zheng X, Chen X A, Wu X A, Lu X , Chen X B, Li X B, etc., corpse appraisal opinions, fingerprint appraisal opinions, handwriting appraisal opinions, on-site inquest and inspection records, and the confession of criminal Fa Ziying. Defendant Lo Wing-chi also partially confessed. Enough to determine.
Changzhou kidnapping facts.
In the summer of 1998, defendants Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying came to Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province, and rented a place in Tianning District, Changzhou City. The two continued to follow the above-mentioned mode of committing crimes, and Lao Rongzhi engaged in escort services in entertainment venues, met the customer Liu Mouyi (the victim, male, 33 years old at the time), and jointly identified Liu Mouyi as the target of the crime with Fa Ziying. One night, Lao Rongzhi lured Liu Mouyi to the aforementioned rented residence, and Fa Ziying, who was hiding indoors in advance, threatened and stabbed Liu Mouyi with a knife, and Lao Rongzhi used a wire to put Liu Mouyi ** on the armchair, and the two blocked Liu Mouyi's mouth and demanded property from Liu Mouyi. In the meantime, Fa Ziying left the rented residence and wanted to remove Liu Mouyi's car parked downstairs, and Lao Rongzhi threatened Liu Mouyi again. The two robbed Liu Mouyi of 5,000 yuan in cash that he put in the car, and forced Liu Mouyi to ask for property from his wife Liu Mou C. The next morning, Liu Mouyi called ** to Liu Mou C and asked Liu Mou C to bring all the cash at home to the designated place. Lao Rongzhi went to the designated place to take Liu Mou C back to the rented residence, and together with Fa Ziying, he robbed Liu Mou C of 70,000 yuan in cash, and Fa Ziying used a rope ** Liu Mou C to block Liu Mou C's mouth. Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying left the rented residence one after another.
The above facts are confirmed by the testimony of witnesses Yun X and Xu X confirmed by cross-examination in the first-instance and second-instance trials, the statements of victims Liu X B and Liu X C, the records of on-site inquests, inspections, and physical examinations, and the confessions of convict Fa Ziying. Defendant Lo Wing-chi also confessed. Enough to determine.
Hefei kidnapping and intentional homicide facts.
In June 1999, defendants Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying came to Hefei City, Anhui Province, and rented a place in Hefei City. The two continued to follow the aforementioned mode of committing crimes, and Lao Rongzhi worked as an escort in a song and dance hall in Hefei City under the pseudonym "Shen Lingqiu", and met the customer Yin (victim, male, died at the age of 34). The two jointly determined that Yin was the target of the crime, and Fa Ziying ordered a steel cage in advance to hold the hostages. On the morning of July 22 of the same year, Lao Rongzhi lured Yin to the aforementioned rented residence, and Fa Ziying threatened with a knife, and together with Lao Rongzhi, he locked Yin in a steel cage, put Yin's hands and feet on the steel cage with cloth strips and wires, and wrapped Yin's neck with iron wires. In order to force Yin to deliver the property as soon as possible, Fa Ziying threatened to kill people in front of Yin to show him. At noon that day, Lo Rongzhi purchased an old freezer for storing the body. Later, Lao Rongzhi guarded Yin, and Fa Ziying went to the labor market to deceive the carpenter Lu (the victim, male, died at the age of 31) into the aforementioned rented residence on the pretext of hiring odd workers. Fa Ziying killed Lu with a knife in the kitchen, cut off Lu's head and showed it to Yin, and then put the body in the freezer. At about 21 o'clock that day, Yin called his wife Liu Mouding, and asked Liu Mouding to bring the money to a hotel in Hefei City to meet Fa Ziying, and wrote two notes according to the requirements of Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying, explaining that Liu Mouding must cooperate. Lao Rongzhi added "I will die if I have less than a penny" and "His accomplices will definitely let me die faster than the person just now". Fa Ziying went to collect the money with a note, but for some reason it failed. At about 23 o'clock that day, Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying forced Yin to call Liu Mouding again. On the morning of the 23rd, Yin was forced to write two notes again, explaining that Liu Mouding must cooperate. Fa Ziying came to Yin's house with *** and the above note and asked Liu Mouding for money. Liu Mouding went out to raise money, and Fa Ziying was arrested by public security officers while waiting at Yin's house. On the 28th of the same month, the bodies of Yin and Lu were found by public security officers in the aforementioned rented residence of Fa Ziying and Lao Rongzhi. According to the forensic examination, Lu died of acute blood loss due to puncture of the left carotid artery, right head and brachial trunk and lungs, and Yin died of suffocation by strangulation. Lao Rongzhi absconded for a long time under pseudonyms such as "Shirley" and was arrested by public security officers in Xiamen, Fujian Province, on November 28, 2019.
The above facts include the steel cages, freezers, and ** tools of the crime seized at the scene that were confirmed by cross-examination during the first-instance and second-instance trials, the rental agreement, the notes written by the victim Yin X with different handwriting, the accommodation registration form retrieved, the mobile phone call records, a copy of the resident ID card of the defendant Lao Rongzhi's pseudonym "Shen Lingqiu", the criminal verdict and criminal ruling that determined that the criminal Fa Ziying and Lao Rongzhi committed this crime and was sentenced in a separate case, and the witnesses Liu X Ding, Qi X , Wu X B, Wu X C, and Chen X C, Tang, Wu, Chen, Cao, Zhang, and others' testimony, corpse appraisal opinions, handwriting appraisal opinions, on-site inquest, inspection, and identification records, and the confession of the convict Fa Ziying. Defendant Lo Wing-chi also partially confessed. Enough to determine.
The lawyer's suggestion to revoke the original judgment for a new trial was not accepted by the SPC.
Defendant Lao Rongzhi's defense lawyer submitted that the facts found in the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment were unclear, the evidence was insufficient, and the trial procedures were illegal, and recommended that Lao Rongzhi's death sentence be not approved, that the original judgment be revoked, and that the Hefei Intermediate People's Court in Anhui Province be appointed for a new trial. The Supreme People's Court's comprehensive evaluation of the defense lawyers' specific defense opinions is as follows:
1. The defense lawyer challenged the handwriting appraisal opinion made by the Jiangxi Provincial Procuratorate, and provided documentary evidence to review the opinion that the handwriting added to the Hefei ransom note was not written by Lao Rongzhi, and that the retrial court commissioned a new appraisal to apply for a new appraisal or remand for a new trial.
After investigation, (1) the witness Liu Mouding confirmed that in addition to the words written by Yin, there were words written by others on the ransom note. (2) During the interrogation by the procurators and the first-instance trial, Lao Rongzhi repeatedly confessed that "I admit that it is my handwriting, especially like my handwriting, but I really have no impression" and "I admit that I wrote the handwriting", and has no substantive objection to the handwriting appraisal opinion. (3) The business scope of the institution submitted by the defense lawyer for issuing the documentary evidence review opinion is economic consultation, technical consultation, and legal consultation, and it does not have the corresponding appraisal qualifications, and Hu Mouyi, one of the review and argumentators, also does not have handwriting appraisal qualifications. (4) Handwriting appraisal opinions in the case are not only made by legally-qualified appraisal institutions and evaluators in accordance with law, but are also corroborated by relevant evidence, and should be admissible. The defense lawyer's defense opinion lacks factual and legal basis, so it is not accepted.
2. The defense lawyer submitted that the investigators took Lao Rongzhi back to Nanchang and interrogated him in two confessions, and then sent Lao Rongzhi to Nanchang Zhonghuan Hospital for eight days of illegal detention and formed six confessions, all of which should be excluded as illegal evidence.
After investigation, after the investigators escorted Lao Rongzhi to Nanchang, they conducted two interrogations from 14:00 on December 5, 2019 to 13:00 the next day. During this period, the investigators ensured Lao Rongzhi's diet, toilet and necessary rest, which fully reflected humanistic care. Because Lao Rongzhi claimed that he was suffering from an illness, the investigators sent Lao Rongzhi to the Nanchang City Public Security Supervision Hospital (i.e., "Zhonghuan Hospital"), which specializes in treating sick detainees, for examination, and found that Lao Rongzhi was not seriously ill and promptly transferred him to a detention center for detention. The audio and video recordings of the six interrogations during this period show that Lo Rongzhi is in good spirits, his expression is relaxed, his communication is smooth, and his confession is natural. The defense lawyer's defense opinion was inconsistent with the facts verified, so it was not accepted.
3. The defense lawyer submitted that the first-instance judgment and second-instance judgment adopted the "accomplice model" to determine that Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying constituted a joint crime, lowering the standard of proof in the case.
After investigation, the courts of first and second instance presented and debated evidence in strict accordance with the law on each of the facts involved in the case, strictly examined the evidence, and determined it in strict accordance with the statutory standards of proof. The four crimes committed by Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying have obvious commonalities, that is, they conspired with Lao Rongzhi to engage in escort services in entertainment venues, to find and jointly determine the target of the crime with Fa Ziying, Fa Ziying threatened with a knife, and the two jointly ** the victim; In the three cases of Nanchang, Changzhou, and Hefei, Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying both rented houses in advance to commit crimes, and Lao Rongzhi lured the victims to rented accommodations; In the three cases of Nanchang, Changzhou, and Wenzhou, Lao Rongzhi left first with stolen money and goods, and Fa Ziying "cleaned up the aftermath", and the patterned characteristics were very prominent. Based on this, the first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment found that "the two persons followed the above-mentioned mode of committing crimes" from the second case, and it was not improper to summarize the same part of the facts as the first case, nor did they lower the standard of proof because of this. The defense lawyer's defense opinion could not be sustained, so it was not adopted.
4. The defense lawyer submitted that Lao Rongzhi repeatedly confessed that he was coerced and ** by Fa Ziying, that his mind was under control, and that his thinking was in an abnormal state, and that he applied for a judicial psychiatric evaluation of Lao Rongzhi.
After investigation, Lao Rongzhi was interrogated by neighbors when he tried to unlock the door of Xiong Moujia's house in Nanchang, and when he was waiting for Liu Moujia to come in Wenzhou, Lu Mou appeared unexpectedly, and he was able to deal with it calmly and was not suspected; took Liu Mou C to the rented accommodation in Changzhou to pay the ransom, and deliberately took a detour to prevent being followed; The content added to the Hefei ransom note is semantic and clear; After the incident, he fled in time and absconded incognito for nearly 20 years, with an extremely clear sense of self-protection and no mental abnormalities. The defense lawyer's defense opinion could not be sustained, so it was not adopted.
5. The defense lawyer submitted that the victim Yin X died on July 23, 1999, and that the first-instance judgment and second-instance judgment erred in determining that he died around July 24.
After investigation, the forensic doctor conducted an autopsy on July 28 and an autopsy on the 29th, and inferred that the time of Yin's death was about 5 days before the autopsy. The first-instance judgment and second-instance judgment found that Yin died around July 24, which does not contradict the opinion of the corpse appraisal and does not affect the determination of the facts of this case. The defense lawyer's defense opinion could not be sustained, so it was not adopted.
6. The defense lawyer submits that in the facts of Nanchang and Wenzhou, Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying only had an ordinary robbery conspiracy, and that Fa Ziying's killing of Xiong X A, Zhang X A, Xiong X B, Liang X and Liu X A was his personal act of exceedance; Lao Rongzhi did not conspire to kill the victim in advance, was not present at the time of Fa Ziying's murder and did not know about it, subjectively had no intention to kill, and should not bear criminal responsibility for the consequences of the victim's death.
After investigation, after Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying conspired to rob, Lao Rongzhi lured Xiong Moujia to the rented residence to rob, and because Xiong Moujia resisted, Fa Ziying strangled Xiong Moujia to death; The two were not satisfied with snatching Xiong Moujia's belongings, and first stepped on it by Lao Rongzhi, and then the two of them used the snatched house key to open the door at night and enter Xiong Moujia's house to continue the robbery. Therefore, Fa Ziying's killing of Xiong Moujia was not only a means to remove obstacles to Xiong Moujia's resistance, but also to create convenient conditions for the two to go to Xiong Moujia's house together to continue the robbery, and it was a joint robbery by the two that caused Xiong Moujia's death, and Lao Rongzhi should bear criminal responsibility for the death of the robbery in accordance with law. After the robbery caused the death of Xiong Moujia, Lao Rongzhi continued to step on or look for targets in Nanchang and Wenzhou, and jointly controlled Zhang Moujia, Xiong Mou B, Liang Mou, and Liu Moujia with Fa Ziying, and left first after the robbery, leaving the women and children who had been controlled to be disposed of by Fa Ziying, who was armed with a knife, putting his life in a highly dangerous situation, and never took effective measures to prevent the consequences of the victim's death, with an obvious intention to allow Fa Ziying to kill people and kill people. Regarding the crime in Nanchang, Lao Rongzhi confessed, "I vaguely knew that Fa Ziying might have killed someone", "I called ** home, and my mother said that something big happened to me", which was corroborated by the testimony of Lao Rongzhi's mother, Shi; Regarding the crime in Wenzhou a year later, Lao Rongzhi confessed, "I don't know what happened to Miss and Mommy who were kidnapped, and I don't care what the result is, as long as Fa Ziying is safe, because I can't take care of others." Lao Rongzhi's confession shows that in the crimes committed in Nanchang and Wenzhou, he had common intent to kill Zhang X A, Xiong X B, Liang X and Liu X A in order to kill Fa Ziying, and should bear criminal responsibility for intentional homicide in accordance with law. When Hefei committed the crime, in order to coerce the kidnapper Yin to comply, Fa Ziying tricked the innocent Lu to the scene to kill him, and cut off Lu's head to intimidate Yin, while Lao Rongzhi bought a freezer for hiding the body. The defense lawyer's defense opinion could not be sustained, so it was not adopted.
7. The defense lawyer submitted that in the joint crime, Lao Rongzhi committed minor acts of violence at the request of Fa Ziying, played an auxiliary role, and was an accomplice; The coercive element of Lo Rongzhi persisted and he was an accessory to coercion.
After investigation, Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying carefully planned, carefully planned, had a clear division of labor, and cooperated with each other. Lao Rongzhi identified and jointly identified the target of the crime with Fa Ziying, lured Xiong X A, Liu X B, and Yin X to their rented residence to rob or kidnap them, and together with Fa Ziying, entered Liang's rented residence to rob, and jointly forced Liang X to deceive Liu X A to the scene to continue the robbery; Lao Rongzhi also took care of and threatened the victim, tried to open the door lock of Xiong Moujia's house to investigate the situation, entered the house to search for property, took Liu Mou C to the scene and collected the ransom, took the hijacked passbook to the bank to withdraw cash, added threatening words to the ransom note, purchased a freezer used to hide Lu's body, and jointly possessed the squandered money and goods with Fa Ziying. Although Lao Rongzhi's status and role are different from those of Fa Ziying, he has always been proactive in the joint crime, played a very important role, and is also the principal offender. Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying are lovers, and the two have committed crimes in various places for four years. During this period, Lao Rongzhi had no shortage of opportunities to go out on his own, and after many robberies and kidnappings, he left with his belongings first, and his personal and voluntary freedom was not lost or restricted, and there were many opportunities to escape from Fa Ziying or call the police, but he neither left Fa Ziying nor called the police, but repeatedly committed crimes with Fa Ziying. There is no evidence to prove that Lao Rongzhi was coerced or mentally controlled by Fa Ziying, and does not constitute an accessory to coercion in accordance with the law. The defense lawyer's defense opinion was inconsistent with the facts verified, so it was not accepted.
8. The defense lawyer submits that the investigation, prosecution and prosecution of this case are not the same.
There were violations of litigation procedures in both the first and second instances: the Nanchang Municipal Judicial Organs' jurisdiction over the case was improper, the first-instance trial consisting of a three-person collegial panel did not comply with the law's provisions on the composition of three adjudicators and four people's assessors in criminal cases with a major social impact, the refusal of the investigating agency to arrange a meeting with a lawyer entrusted by Lao Rongzhi's close relatives before appointing a legal aid lawyer, and the failure of Liu X B and Liu X C to appear in court had an impact on the case, and the addition of the crime of intentional homicide to the indictment and charge of robbery in the first-instance trial judgment violated the principle of trial neutralityThe original judgment shall be revoked and the Hefei Intermediate People's Court shall be designated for a new trial.
After investigation, (1) Nanchang City was one of the places where the crime was committed in this case. According to Article 25 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Nanchang Intermediate People's Court has jurisdiction over this case. (2) Article 16 of the "People's Assessors Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that in criminal cases where a sentence of 10 years or more imprisonment, life imprisonment, or death may be imposed, and the social impact is significant, the people's assessors and judges shall form a seven-member collegial panel to conduct the proceedings. Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Law also stipulates exceptions to the composition of collegial panels in people's courts trying first-instance criminal cases, that is, "where the law provides for a single judge to hear a case or a collegial panel composed of judges, such provisions shall prevail". Whether or not the collegial panel is to be attended by people's assessors should also be subject to other legal provisions. Paragraph 1 of Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the trial of a first-instance criminal case by an intermediate people's court shall be conducted by a collegial panel composed of three adjudicators or a total of three or seven adjudicators and people's assessors. Whether a case has a "major social impact" is to be comprehensively judged and decided by the people's court based on the specific circumstances of the case. The court of first instance decided that the case should be tried by a collegial panel composed of three judges, which did not violate the provisions of the law. (3) Article 51 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that where a legal aid institution appoints a lawyer to provide a defense for the defendant, and the defendant's guardian or close relative retains a defender on his behalf, the defendant's opinions shall be heard, and the defender shall be determined. This case was investigated and examined for prosecution.
From the first and second instance trials to the death penalty review stage, the case-handling organs promptly informed Lao Rongzhi of the situation of Lao Rongzhi's close relatives retaining a lawyer on their behalf, and Lao Rongzhi himself made a decision, and before the second trial, Lao Rongzhi made it clear that he would not accept a lawyer retained by his close relatives to defend him. During the second-instance trial, Lao Rongzhi agreed to the close relatives to retain a lawyer on his behalf and confirmed it, and the second-instance court fully protected the rights enjoyed by the lawyer in accordance with the law. (4) The relevant judicial organs notified the two surviving victims, Liu X B and Liu X C, to appear in court in accordance with law. In the first instance, the second victim clearly stated that he would not participate in the trial, and at the second trial, he expressed his unwillingness to appear in court in writing and submitted reasonable reasons, and the second victim's statement was corroborated by other evidence, and not appearing in court did not affect the trial of this case. (5) Article 295, Paragraph 1 (2) of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that if the facts alleged in the prosecution are clear and the evidence is credible and sufficient, but the charges are improper, the people's court shall make a guilty verdict on the basis of the law and the facts ascertained at trial. Based on the above provisions, the court of first instance found that Lao Rongzhi's act of allowing Zhang X A, Xiong X B, Liang X and Liu X A to be killed after the joint robbery in Nanchang and Wenzhou also constituted the crime of intentional homicide and was not improper. In summary, the Supreme People's Court held that the defense lawyer's above-mentioned defense opinion on the violation of legal provisions in the litigation procedures of this case was inconsistent with the relevant facts or legal provisions, and therefore did not accept it.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the defendant Lao Rongzhi and the criminal Fa Ziying deliberately and illegally deprived others of their lives, and their actions constituted the crime of intentional homicide; Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying used violence and threats to rob other people's property for the purpose of illegal possession, and their conduct constituted the crime of robbery; Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying kidnapped others for the purpose of extorting property, and their actions also constituted the crime of kidnapping. Lo Rongzhi also played a major role in the joint crime, and is also the principal offender, and should be punished in accordance with all the crimes in which he participated. Lao Rongzhi and Fa Ziying carried out robbery, intentional homicide, and kidnapping across regions in a row, intentionally killing 5 people; The robbery resulted in the death of one person, and the robbery was carried out in a huge amount; The kidnapping and killing of one kidnapped person is particularly heinous, the methods are particularly cruel, the subjective malice is extremely deep, the personal danger and social harm are extremely great, and the consequences and crimes are extremely serious, and shall be punished in accordance with law. Several crimes committed by Lo Rongzhi should be punished concurrently. The facts ascertained in the first-instance judgment and second-instance judgment are clear, the evidence is credible and sufficient, the conviction is accurate, and the sentence is appropriate. The trial proceedings were lawful.
In accordance with Articles 246 and 250 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 429 (1) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, on December 10, 2023, the Supreme People's Court made a ruling:
Approved the Jiangxi Provincial High People's Court (2021) Gan Xing Zhong No. 236 to uphold the first-instance sentence of the defendant Lao Rongzhi to death for intentional homicide and deprivation of political rights for life; sentenced to death for robbery, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property; A criminal verdict was made to sentence him to death, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property, and a criminal ruling was made to carry out the death penalty, deprivation of political rights for life, and confiscation of all personal property.