Lawyer's character

"Can the defendant's defender ask questions to the defendant?" the judge said.

"Defendant Liu Meng, have you seen this kind of wires connecting households before?" Fang Yi asked.

"I've seen it before. There are many such threads in our village. I see them often and I'm used to them." Liu Meng thought for a while.

Fang Yi asked this question because he wanted to tell the judge that the type of household line where the crime occurred is very common in rural areas. It is very safe under normal circumstances. Death by electrocution will not happen at all. People in the village are used to it, so from the perspective of ordinary people, Cognitively speaking, the set line is safe. Even if an ultra-high modified car hits a household line, there is no risk of electric shock under normal circumstances.

…

“The facts of this case have been clearly investigated, the court investigation has ended, and now the court debate has begun. The court debate mainly revolves around the disputed facts that have not been certified by the court and the issue of how the law should be applied based on the facts.

The prosecutor will speak first. "The judge said.

"Judge: The prosecutor believes that the defendant Liu Meng illegally modified his vehicle so that the height of the vehicle exceeded the height stipulated in traffic management regulations. He should have foreseen that certain harmful consequences might occur while driving and should have taken necessary preventive measures.

However, when the defendant parked the car on the day of the incident, he neglected to observe the surrounding environment and failed to foresee the possible harmful consequences that should have been foreseen. He was subjectively negligent and objectively caused the serious consequences of the victim's death, and he should be held criminally responsible. , so we believe that the defendant Liu Meng is guilty of negligent causing death. It is recommended that he be sentenced to three years in prison. complete. "The male prosecutor spoke.

…

"Defendant Liu Meng's defender expressed his defense opinion," the judge said.

"Judge: The defender believes that although the defendant Liu Meng caused the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu, he subjectively had neither intention nor negligence. The death of the victim is not related to the defendant's modification of the vehicle and violation of traffic regulations There is no causal relationship under criminal law. The death of the victim Liu Liangzhu was an accident, and the defendant Liu Meng should not bear criminal responsibility for the consequences. The specific reasons are as follows:

1. The defendant Liu Meng was not subjectively negligent regarding the consequences of the victim’s death due to electrocution.

Article 15 of the "Criminal Law" stipulates that one should foresee that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society. If one fails to foresee the consequences due to negligence, or has foreseen the consequences and believes that they can be avoided, so that such consequences occur, it is a crime of negligence. Criminal negligence includes negligence and overconfidence.

(1) The defendant Liu Meng was not negligent.

Negligent fault refers to the mental state in which the actor should have foreseen that his behavior may have harmful consequences to society, but failed to foresee it due to negligence. This kind of negligence includes three elements:

1. The perpetrator should foresee that his behavior may have consequences that are harmful to society.

2. The perpetrator did not foresee that his behavior might have consequences that would harm society.

3. The perpetrator lacked awareness of the possible harmful consequences and failed to foresee them, which was caused by his own negligence.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng secretly welded the canopy on the truck compartment, causing the height of the agricultural vehicle to exceed the standard height, the defendant claimed that the lighting wires connecting the households at the location where the crime occurred did not meet the safe electricity height requirements, and There is partial nudity, which could not have been foreseen.

According to the evidence in the case, the height of the live line between the households at the location of the crime is only 220CM (the legal minimum height should be 250CM). Even if the power company's professional maintenance personnel have not measured it, they may not be able to It is foreseen that the height of the fire line from the ground does not meet the requirements.

As an ordinary person, when Liu Meng parked his tricycle at the crime scene, he had no obligation and could not have foreseen that the household wires at the crime scene did not meet the requirements for safe electricity use and ground distance, and it was even less possible for him to foresee that the outer covering of the wires was damaged. The wire core is exposed.

In addition, according to ordinary people's experience, when parking under normal low-voltage lighting circuits, there will be no accidents in which the car body becomes electrified.

The defendant Liu Meng did not illegally stop on a road with frequent passing vehicles and let the victim get off. Instead, he turned to a villager's house that he thought was safer and let the victim get off. He had done all the necessary things for the personal safety of the passengers in the car. There is no negligence in safety precaution obligations.

(2) The defendant was not at fault for being overconfident

The fault of overconfidence refers to the subjective psychological state in which the perpetrator has foreseen that his behavior may have consequences that are harmful to society, but believes that they can avoid them.

In this case, the defendant Liu Meng had no obligation and could not have foreseen that when he parked his car at the location of the crime, the car awning would happen to hit the exposed wires that did not meet the height requirements for safe electricity use and the insulation measures failed. Therefore, there cannot be a problem that can be avoided by being gullible. Therefore, the defendant is not subjectively at fault for being overconfident.

2. There is no criminal law causal relationship between defendant Liu Meng’s private modification of agricultural vehicles and the electrocution death of victim Liu Liangzhu.

Causal relationship in criminal law refers to the direct and inevitable relationship between the perpetrator's harmful behavior and the harmful consequences, which causes and is caused.

Only when the perpetrator's harmful behavior plays a direct decisive role in the occurrence of harmful consequences, there is a causal relationship between the harmful behavior and the harmful consequences in criminal law.

In this case, although the defendant Liu Meng modified the vehicle privately, causing the height of the vehicle to violate traffic management regulations.

However, the defendant's behavior itself did not directly cause Liu Liangzhu's death, nor was it the direct cause of Liu Liangzhu's death from electrocution.

According to the evidence in the case, Liu Liangzhu died of electric shock. The direct cause of the electric shock was that the height of the lighting circuit at the incident location did not meet the distance between the house circuit and the ground for safe electricity use, and the insulation of the wire was damaged, which led to discharge at the exposed part of the wire.

Defendant Liu Meng's agricultural vehicle rain shelter metal pole happened to hit the exposed part of the wire that did not meet the safety height and became charged, resulting in the accident in which Liu Liangzhu was electrocuted.

Therefore, there is no necessary direct internal connection between the defendant Liu Meng's illegal modification of the vehicle and the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the defendant's behavior and the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu under criminal law.

To sum up, although the defendant Liu Meng's behavior of privately modifying a vehicle to exceed the violation of regulations is somewhat related to the result of the electrocution of the victim Liu Liangzhu, his behavior has no criminal law causal relationship with the death of the victim Liu Liangzhu, and subjectively There is no fault either.

The electrocution of Liu Liangzhu was caused by reasons that could not be foreseen by the defendant Liu Meng. It was an accident. Therefore, the defendant Liu Meng did not commit a crime. complete. "After Fang Yi finished expressing his defense opinions, he looked at the judge.

…