Whether participating in the beating after being injured can be punished as an accomplice

Song Guangchao Liu Ke

Basic facts of the case

Zhao and Qian had a verbal altercation and caused a fight because of trivial matters, Qian rode and pressed Zhao, and the two punched each other on the head and face. Passing by, Sun Mou tried to pull the frame in the way of pushing Qian Mou with an elbow frame, but was bitten by Qian Mou and broke the thumb of his right hand, and pushed Qian Mou to the ground in one breath. At this time, Zhao mou rode on Qian's body and punched Qian's head and face. In the meantime, Sun kicked Qian in the face. After that, Zhao kicked Qian in the face again. After appraisal, Qian's facial injuries constituted minor injuries of the second degree.

Legal Commentary

In this case, there was no dispute that Zhao's conduct constituted the crime of intentional injury. However, there are different opinions on how to qualitatively punish Sun's behavior and whether Sun's behavior constitutes an accomplice to intentional injury.

The first opinion held that it could not be proved that Sun and Zhao had deliberately injured and conspired to commit harm, that Sun was an accomplice, that Qian's injury had been formed before Sun committed the injurious act, and that Sun should not be prosecuted on the grounds that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient.

The second opinion held that Sun and Zhao constituted a "one-sided joint crime", that is, Sun realized that he was jointly committing an act of harming Qian with Zhao, and even if the injury was not directly caused, he should also bear responsibility for the consequences of the injury.

The third opinion held that Sun mou constituted a joint crime, but it could not be determined that he was responsible, and according to the principle of "having doubts in favor of the defendant", it should be not prosecuted on the grounds that the facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient.

I agree with the third view for the following reasons:

Sun's behavior should be judged in three stages.

In the first stage, Qian mou rode zhao mou to beat each other, and Sun Mou, who passed by, tried to "pull the frame" by pushing Qian mou with an elbow frame, and there was no evidence to determine that Sun Mou had the intention of committing a joint crime, and the analysis at this stage was the same as the viewpoint.

In the second stage, Sun was bitten by Qian and pushed to the ground. On the one hand, legitimate defense cannot be found in this plot, because Sun's act of pushing Qian's neck with his elbow frame has created a current danger to Qian, Qian's bite of Sun is legitimate defense, Sun is one of the founders of the current danger that Qian is facing, and the legitimate defense against Qian can no longer constitute "legitimate defense". On the other hand, there is no evidence to confirm whether Sun mou has the criminal intention to jointly hurt Qian mou with Zhao after being bitten, forming a one-sided accomplice, or holding the intention of accomplice from the beginning. The act of pushing and shoving after being bitten by ordinary people is a normal stress response, and Qian has not been injured by Sun's pushing and shoving behavior, and it cannot be determined that Sun's act of pushing down Qian is a one-sided accomplice.

In the third stage, Sun kicked Qian's head and face with his foot when Zhao rode and pressed Qian to carry out an injurious act. At this stage, Sun mou knew that Zhao mou deliberately hurt Qian mou, but still helped to beat Qian mou, and should be determined that the act belonged to the continuing accomplice. Sun's complicity can only be confirmed in the third stage, and the determination of his responsibility in the joint crime should also be limited to the harm caused by the third stage.

Since Zhao punched Qian's face in the first stage of Sun's behavior, the existing evidence cannot determine at which stage Qian's minor injuries were formed. Therefore, according to the "principle that doubts are beneficial to the defendant", Sun should not be prosecuted on the grounds that the facts are unclear and the evidence is insufficient.

Source: China Business Daily