Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)hpmailerpublished in(发表于) 2013/11/30 9:35:14 Dead girls in Beijing three focus tracking
Xinhuanet, Beijing, November 29 (reporter)-closely watched Beijing Daxing dead girls final hammer. Morning of 29th Beijing high people's Court of final adjudication of the case ruled that decision dismissed the appeal and upheld the Beijing high people's Court against the first-instance verdict submitted to the Supreme People's Court approved the death penalty.
Prior to this, Han Lei and his defenders in the first instance and second instance court trial, were made by Han Lei does not see clearly inside the car when the incident occurred were children miscarriage of Justice, should be characterized as gross negligence causing death rather than wilful murder. In addition, the appeal also raised, to find out whether Han Lei has criminal responsibility. Decision of the second instance to respond to the above issues are clear.
Focus: does the site clearly read as a kid?
In the first instance court trial, said Han Lei, thought not of infants, thought it was a woman with a shopping cart. Those drinks with anger, get up directly into the past. Don't feel any catching up, then someone called a "child", and realize that this is a child.
However, many of the witnesses at the scene confirmed that after hanlei to strike down the child's mother, is always standing. Later, Han Lei turned and caught the baby, said the word "children children" and fell down. Lighting is good, prams have seen very clearly that children in the car, obviously, can see at a glance the children.
Evidence shows that according to the fence outside the supermarket, customers shopping cart could not be launch rails. Guardrail prominently hung prompt: do not use the shopping basket, baskets, hand basket out here. In addition, shopping carts and baby carriages there are obvious differences, and can't push their cart from shopping.
Focus two: should be negligence causing death was intentional homicide?
In the appeal, Han Lei and his counsel raised, Han Lei mistaken pushchair is stored in, do not realise the baby in the pram, belong to the object of awareness known errors, human errors, Han Lei is negligence causing death, rather than intentional killing.
On this, court by check, witnesses and the meanwhile people proved Han Lei in modus operandi before and after has identified and control capacity; monitoring video and the witnessed witnesses proved scene lighting conditions good, Han Lei in modus operandi process in the language expression clear, and acts agile coherent, its on victims sat in baby car within has clear of cognitive, not belonging to due to negligence along no foreseen or has foreseen and gullible can avoid of fault mentality; Han Lei of acts meet statutory of deliberately killing Sin constitute elements, upheld on its qualitative correctly, Han Lei to appellant Han Lei and his defenders of negligence causing death of the grounds of appeal and defence against it.
Focus three: Han Lei has criminal responsibility?
In the first instance trial, said Han Lei, at noon and in the evening the same day of the incident, he drank more than a kilo of white wine and a few beers, and expressed his "manic, and easier to drink after 782 Mania". On appeal, Han Lei and his defenders suggested that the judgment of the first instance without identifying Han Lei has criminal responsibility.
However, the prosecution provides more evidence of Han Lei with criminal responsibility, at the time of the murder and has the ability to identify and control before and after the murder. Li Ming's statement proves that before the incident, Li Ming Han Lei for the unfamiliar course directions. At this time, Han Lei identified and control capacity normal; crime process in the, Han Lei implementation fell child care acts Shi accompanied "what children not children" of speech, throughout crime process thinking normal, and expression clear, and acts agile, and action coherent, its stands, and walk State also is not displayed drunk State of exception; crime Hou Han Lei fled scene process in the can continues to accurate to for Li Ming refers to road and in Han Lei rent residence near parking; and Han Lei returned to rent residence Hou, has witnesses proved Han Lei acts performance no exception.
Beijing high people's Court believes that the investigation, witnesses and co-accused Lee Ming-Han Lei before and after the crime and the crime is conscious, is no exception; Han Lei's cell phone records prove that fled the scene repeatedly calls on the way; Han Lei with the ability to identify and control their behavior, this ground of appeal must fail.
新华网北京11月29日电(记者 涂铭)备受关注的北京大兴摔死女童案终审落槌。北京市高级人民法院29日上午对此案进行终审宣判，裁定驳回上诉，维持原判，北京市高院将对一审死刑判决结果报请最高人民法院核准。
此前，韩磊及其辩护人在一审和二审庭审中，均提出韩磊事发时没有看清楚车内是孩子发生误判，应定性为过失致人死亡而不是故意杀人。此外，上诉意见还提出，要查明韩磊是否具有刑事责任能力。二审裁定对上述问题均予以明确回应。
焦点一：究竟现场是否能看清楚是孩子？
在一审庭审中，韩磊表示，当时以为不是婴儿车，以为是一个女的带着一个购物车。当时酒劲带愤怒，爬起来就直接冲过去了。抓起来时没有任何感觉，后来有人喊了一句“孩子”，才意识到这是孩子。
但是，多名在现场的证人证实，韩磊把孩子母亲打倒后，始终是站着的。后来，韩磊转身把婴儿抓起来，说了句“什么孩子不孩子的”，就摔了下去。当时灯光很好，婴儿车看得很清楚，孩子在车里很明显，一眼就能看见孩子。
物证则显示，根据超市门外的护栏情况，顾客无法将购物车推出护栏。护栏的显著位置悬挂有提示语：请勿将购物车筐、购物篮、手提篮带出此处。此外，购物车与婴儿车存在明显差别，且购物车不能推离购物场所。
焦点二：应定过失致人死亡还是故意杀人？
在上诉意见中，韩磊及其辩护人提出，韩磊误认为小推车中堆放的是物品，没有认识到小推车中有女婴，属于客体认识错误、侵犯对象发生了错误认识，韩磊的行为是过失致人死亡，而不是故意杀人。
对此，法院经查，证人及同案人证明韩磊在作案前后具备辨认和控制能力；监控录像及目击证人证明现场灯光条件良好，韩磊在作案过程中语言表达清晰、行为敏捷连贯，其对被害人坐在婴儿车内有明确的认知，不属于因疏忽大意没有预见或者已经预见而轻信能够避免的过失心态；韩磊的行为符合法定的故意杀人罪构成要件，原判对其定性正确，对上诉人韩磊及其辩护人所提韩磊系过失致人死亡的上诉理由和辩护意见不予采纳。
焦点三：韩磊是否具备刑事责任能力？
在一审庭审中，韩磊表示，事发当天中午和晚上，他一共喝了一斤多白酒和几瓶啤酒，并表示自己“喝七八两以后就容易狂躁、癫狂”。在上诉意见中，韩磊及其辩护人提出，一审判决没有查清韩磊是否具有刑事责任能力。
然而，检方提供了多份证据证明韩磊具有刑事责任能力，在案发时及案发前后均具有辨认和控制能力。李明的供述证明，案发前，韩磊为不熟悉当地路线的李明指路。此时，韩磊辨认和控制能力正常；案发过程中，韩磊实施摔幼儿行为时伴随“什么孩子不孩子”的言语，整个犯罪过程思维正常、表达清晰、行为敏捷、动作连贯，其站立、走路状态亦未显示醉酒状态的异常；案发后韩磊逃离现场过程中能继续准确地为李明指路并在韩磊租住地附近停车；且韩磊回到租住地后，有证人证明韩磊行为表现无异常。
北京市高院认为，经查，证人及同案人李明均证明韩磊在作案过程中及案发前后神志清醒，无异常；韩磊的手机通话记录证明其在逃离现场途中多次通话；韩磊具备辨认和控制自身行为的能力，该上诉理由不能成立。
赞