Related case: an accidental poisoning incident
Fang Jianzhu Wang Tieling
Case:
Complaint of first instance:
The People's Procuratorate of Tong 'an District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province accused the defendant, Jin Chen, of negligently putting a pack of cereal that he had injected with rodenticide in July of the same year on the table of the rented dormitory. At about 5: 30 pm on September 23 of the same year, the bag of cereal was brewed and drunk by students Xu, Cai, Zhang and others who lived with it. Defendant Jin Chen ignored public safety and caused three people to be poisoned by negligence, resulting in 1 death and two serious injuries. His behavior has constituted the crime of negligent poisoning.
Defendant's defense and his defender's defense opinions: The defendant and his defender argued that the defendant Jin Chen was less subjective and had a good attitude of pleading guilty, and requested a probation.
Facts of first instance:
The People's Court of Tong 'an District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province found through public hearing that Jin Chen and his classmates Xu, Cai and Zhang shared a house downstairs at No.90 Xiyan Road, Xindian Town, Tong 'an District. 1September 2, 9991at noon, Jin Chen accidentally put the bag of cereal on the table of the rented dormitory. At about 5: 30 pm on September 23 of the same year, Xu, Cai and Zhang, who lived with them, returned home after school, and the three of them brewed and drank the bag of cereal that was still on the table. After drinking, the three of them went out to eat together. On the way, Xu and Cai fell to the ground because of a toxic attack in the valley. Zhang also had the same symptoms of poisoning and collapsed to the ground. Xu Jing died after being rescued. After forensic identification, Xu died of food poisoning caused by inhaling fluoroacetamide; Cai and Zhang are both severely poisoned by fluoroacetamide. The defendant Jin Chen's family temporarily compensated RMB 3,000. Cai * * * paid 8503.7 yuan for medical expenses, and Zhang paid 2775.7 yuan for medical expenses.
The People's Court of Tong 'an District, Xiamen City, Fujian Province held that the defendant Jin Chen had neglected the management of toxic food and ignored public safety, thus causing three people to eat by mistake, which constituted the crime of negligent poisoning. The charges charged by the public prosecution agency were established. It can be given a lighter punishment according to law. However, there is no evidence to prove the excuses and defense opinions about surrender. Therefore, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Compensation for Xu 5510.4 million yuan, Cai 9.553, 7 yuan, Zhang 3.339, 7 yuan.
Second instance:
Defendant Jin Chen refused to accept the appeal. The reasons for Jin Chen and his defenders to appeal are as follows: First, there is a plot of surrender; Second, the appellant just put the cereal on the table in the dormitory, not in the public place, and told Cai that it might go bad. Therefore, the appellant belongs to a minor case and requests a suspended sentence.
The Intermediate People's Court of Xiamen City, Fujian Province held that the public security organ had grasped the criminal facts of this case after the incident and summoned the appellant 1999 on September 26th. The appellant did not take the initiative to go to the public security organ or surrender himself to the relevant organization. In another investigation, Cai confirmed that he had seen this bag of cereal three or four days before the incident and asked him if he could soak it. The appellant told him that "I want to hit on you, and that bag was left over from last semester", but did not explicitly tell him that the bag of cereal was poisonous or spoiled and could not be eaten. Therefore, its second appeal ground is also untenable. The consequences of this case are very serious. The original judgment was accurate, the sentencing was appropriate, and the amount of compensation in the civil judgment was reasonable, which should be supported and the appeal rejected.
Comments:
During the trial of this case, there are three opinions on how to deal with Jin Chen's behavior:
The first opinion is that this case was an accident. It has been more than two months since the cereal was injected with rodenticide and discovered by Jin Chen. Jin Chen could not have foreseen the harm caused by the poisonous cereal being eaten by his classmates. So it should not be considered a crime.
2. This case constitutes the crime of negligent death and the crime of negligent serious injury. The reason is that Jin Chen has reached the legal age of criminal responsibility and has the capacity for criminal responsibility. Subjectively, he neglected to put toxic cereal on the dormitory table, which violated others' right to life and body. Objectively, he committed acts that caused one death and two serious injuries.
Third, this case constitutes a crime of negligent poisoning. Jin Chen ignored the public safety and caused his classmates to eat toxic cereal by mistake, which met the constitutive requirements of the crime of negligent poisoning.
The court finally adopted the third opinion:
First of all, we must distinguish between crime and non-crime. Accidents, subjectively innocent behavior. Its main characteristics are: the actor has no intention or negligence subjectively, and the damage result is caused by unforeseeable reasons. The so-called unforeseeable means that the actor did not foresee that his behavior would cause harmful results, and according to his cognitive ability and the specific conditions at that time, he could not foresee it at all. In this way, although unforeseeable accidents and faults are manifested as not foreseeing the results of their own actions, they are essentially different, that is, the former is unforeseeable and should not be foreseen; The latter was foreseeable, but it was only because of negligence that it was not foreseen. In this case, Jin Chen could and should have foreseen that the toxic cereal injected with rodenticide might be eaten by his classmates if it was placed on the table in the dormitory where he lived with others, so it was impossible to be unpredictable. Accordingly, this case is not accidental.
Secondly, we should make clear the boundary between this crime and non-crime. There are many similarities between the crime of negligent poisoning causing death and the crime of negligent poisoning, that is, there is negligence in subjective aspects; Objectively speaking, the perpetrators are all poisoning crimes. But the essential difference between them lies in the difference of the criminal objects. The crime of negligent poisoning infringes on public safety. Under the subjective premise of negligence, if the actor poisons one or more specific people, it constitutes the crime of negligent death and the crime of negligent serious injury; If the poisoning behavior is aimed at the personal and property safety of an unspecified majority, it constitutes the crime of negligent poisoning. Jin Chen put the cereal mixed with rodenticide solution on the table of the dormitory shared by * * *. First, the dormitory shared by * * * belongs to the public space of the co-tenant, and the table in the dormitory belongs to the co-tenant * * *, not to the private domain of any member; Second, although the co-tenants live in the same room, there is a very loose temporary combination relationship between them. Everyone is a highly independent individual, unaware of other people's activities. Third, it has relative personnel mobility. Therefore, Jin Chen's actions endanger the life, health and safety of the unspecified majority.
In this case, the courts of first and second instance correctly found Jin Chen guilty of negligent poisoning.