Sihai network

Mo Huanjing is sentenced to death in the second trial of Hangzhou nanny arson

According to the micro blog "Zhijiang Tianping" of Zhejiang Higher People's court, at 15:00 on June 4, Zhejiang higher court publicly adjudicated the case of Mo Huanjing, the defendant of the first instance of Hangzhou middle court, who set fire and stole (appeal), and ruled to reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment; the death sentence of Mo Huanjing was reported to the highest law for approval according to law.

At 15:00 on June 4, 2018, the Zhejiang Higher People's court publicly adjudicated the case of Mo Huanjing's arson and theft (appeal) in the first instance of Hangzhou intermediate people's court in the second court of the court, ruling to reject the appeal and maintain the original judgment; the death sentence of Mo Huanjing was reported to the highest people's court for approval according to law. Mo Huanjing and his defenders and prosecutors came to the court to participate in the sentencing. Relatives of the victims, representatives of the National People's Congress, members of the CPPCC, media reporters and representatives of the public from all walks of life participated in the attendance.

The presiding judge read out the criminal order of the second instance of this case. According to the criminal ruling, the case was found out in the second instance of Zhejiang Higher People's court. The fact that Mo Huanjing set fire and stole was clear in the first instance, and the evidence was true and sufficient.

As for the reasons for appeal and the opinions of prosecution and defense, the higher people's Court of Zhejiang Province judges and analyzes as follows:

(1) About whether Mo Huanjing has the subjective intention of setting fire. First of all, Mo Huanjing lost all his money by gambling on the night of the crime, and his economic situation has been in a dilemma that he can't help himself. Combined with his confession that he would be grateful to borrow money again by setting fire and fighting fire again, it is enough to prove that Mo Huanjing has the criminal intention of deliberately setting fire. Secondly, the mobile phone electronic physical evidence test report proves that the mobile phone used by Mo Huanjing searched for key words such as the burning and explosion of lighters, the fire of curtains or wires in the home, the cause of the fire, the fire pictures, the burning speed of the fire, and the criminal responsibility of the fire for many times in the noon, afternoon and 2:11-4:18 a.m. of the day before the crime. The above mobile search records are enough to prove that Mo Huanjing has a premeditated arson. Thirdly, Mo Huanjing deliberately uses a lighter to ignite books, curtains in the living room, sofas and other combustibles, which eventually causes a serious fire. His ignition behavior obviously belongs to intentional arson. Fourth, according to the determination of the fire department, the fire spot is located in the middle west of the south of the living room, which is the burned position of the sofa on the side of the balcony and the curtain on the side of the master bedroom. According to the evidence in the case, it can be determined that the sofa and the curtain are the first items in the house that caught fire. According to Mo Huanjing's suggestion, first light the books with a lighter, thinking that the books were not lit, and then look for the newspapers that ignited Cheng found that the excuse for the curtain fire reflected his firm will to set fire, his intention and behavior to stop the fire, and his behavior did not effectively prevent the fire. His behavior did not conform to the provisions of the criminal law on the suspension of crime. Therefore, the defenders put forward that Mo Huanjing only carried out the ignition behavior, did not set fire intentionally, ignited the curtain by accident, should be convicted of fire, and there was a suspension of the behavior of setting fire, which was obviously inconsistent with the facts and legal provisions found out, could not be established, and would not be accepted.

(2) Whether Mo Huanjing's subjective consequence of this case is negligence. In this case, Mo Huanjing deliberately set fire at 4:55, Zhu Xiaozhen at 5:04:35, and Mo Huanjing at 5:10:51, which was 6 minutes later than Zhu Xiaozhen. After Mo Huanjing deliberately lit the book with a lighter, he went to look for other kindling objects for fear of no fire, and the intention of deliberately forming a fire was obvious. Intentional arson seriously endangers public safety is a common sense. The serious consequences of intentional arson are not unforeseen, but knowingly left to chance. Therefore, Mo Huanjing is not negligent in the serious consequences of this case, but holds a laissez faire attitude. Mo Huanjing and his defenders propose that Mo Huanjing's subjective appeal reason and defense intention that the serious consequences of this case are negligent See can not be established, do not accept.

(3) About whether Mo Huanjing has any rescue action. Mo Huanjing, at the request of the victim Zhu Xiaozhen, called 119 to call the police, took a hammer, asked for help from the security guard, took it to the first floor and wanted to go upstairs with the firefighters at the elevator entrance of the owner and provided a room card for the firefighters to pass through, contacted the relatives of the victim to inform them of the fire at home, and informed some relatives and neighbors of the trapped people in the house Huanjing had some rescue actions after the fire, but it did not effectively avoid the occurrence of serious consequences. Mo Huanjing's excuses about taking the bucket to put out the fire, removing the sundries outside the nanny's room, pressing the fire alarm outside the nanny's room, hitting the glass in the girl's bedroom bathroom with a hammer are inconsistent with the evidence on record. The defense's opinion that Mo Huanjing pressed the manual alarm at 5:08 was also inconsistent with the fact reflected in the fire control record.

(4) On whether the crime of Mo Huanjing's arson constitutes surrender or confession. Although Mo Huanjing called 119 to call the police after the fire according to the victim Zhu Xiaozhen's request, he only reflected the fact of the fire to the public security organ, not actively admitted the fact of his arson crime. Before Mo Huanjing called the police, the victim Zhu Xiaozhen and relevant people had called the police for many times, so the original judgment determined that Mo Huanjing's alarm had no practical value. Although Mo Huanjing escaped to the outside and didn't leave the fire building downstairs, the testimony of the witness in the case reflected that Mo Huanjing didn't inform others of his arson when others asked about the fire situation, and didn't explain the arson behavior when he was taken to the police station by the public security police for questioning. Therefore, although he waited downstairs after the crime, he didn't have the subjective will to commit the crime and didn't belong to the scene Waiting for a vote. In addition, in the process of questioning Mo Huanjing, the public security police found that he was nervous. They only checked the use of mobile phones before the crime with consent and input the gesture code in person, and confirmed that he was suspected of committing the arson crime at 12:40 on the same day when they searched and browsed the records of web pages such as fire, spontaneous combustion of lighters, etc. in the mobile phones they used Criminal summons. Mo Huanjing explained the main criminal facts of the arson when the police interrogated him and prompted his abnormal whereabouts and behaviors before the crime and carried out ideological education. Therefore, the defender proposes that Mo Huanjing's opinion that before the public security organ has mastered the main facts of the arson crime, he voluntarily confesses to constitute a surrender and the public security organ has failed to check Mo Huanjing's mobile phone violation is not tenable and is not accepted. However, in view of the fact that Mo Huanjing can account for the crime of arson in the interrogation, it can be determined that he has confessed circumstances to the crime of arson.

(5) Whether there is a causal relationship between the public security fire rescue and the serious consequences of this case. If a behavior that endangers society inevitably leads to the production of harmful results, only when the intervention of external forces aggravates or promotes the production of such results, can it be considered as a multiple cause and one result in criminal law. The evidence on record shows that there is no such situation in this case, and Mo Huanjing's arson is the only reason for the consequences of this case. It is a legal duty for the public security fire department to block or reduce the fire loss in fire rescue. If it fails to fulfill its duty, it shall bear the responsibility. However, from the perspective of this case, the existing evidence cannot prove this. According to the evidence in the case, the 119 command center and 110 command center of the public security organ received the alarm from the victim Zhu Xiaozhen and the relevant masses from 5:04 on June 22, 2017. At 5:07, Hangzhou public security fire bureau immediately sent firefighters and fire trucks to the scene, and at 5:11, they arrived at the north main gate of the plot. Under the leadership of the community security, the broken iron door ran into the bottom of the fire building, and at 5:16, the fire-fighting and rescue equipment was brought into the fire building. At more than 5:30, it was found that the range of the water gun was reduced from 10 meters to less than 2 meters, which could not meet the fire fighting needs. The fire started to increase gradually from 5:36. The firefighters immediately informed the property to check the operation of the fire pump, and at 5:40, they pressed the remote start button of the indoor fire hydrant, but the fire hydrant pump was not started in time. After the fire hydrant pump was started at 5:45, the water pressure still could not meet the fire-fighting needs. The fire commander found that the valve of the fire hydrant water pump adapter in the community was rusted. On the one hand, he contacted the water supply department to pressurize the municipal water supply pipe network near the crime community. On the other hand, he ordered the firefighters to lay the water belt along the stairs in a timely manner, and completed the water belt laying work at 6:15, so as to realize the water supply of the water belt and gradually control the fire. The fire was basically put out at around 6:48, and four victims were found and handed over to medical staff. According to the evidence in the case, after the internal attack firefighters entered the fire scene, they carried out fire fighting and personnel search and rescue simultaneously. In the absence of direct rescue conditions, firefighters must take effective fire control as the premise, and then create conditions for the rescue. Based on the fire site environment and housing structure of this case, there is no objective condition for internal attack firefighters to save people first and then put out the fire. Before the trapped persons are found in the search and rescue, the relevant firefighters and property management personnel give negative answers to the relatives of the victims and the people on the scene about whether they have found the trapped persons, which is not inconsistent with the fact that four victims were not found until the end of the fire fighting. Four victims were not found until the end of the fire fighting, which was directly related to the location of four victims trapped far away from the entrance door and the scene of the fire. Looking at the fire fighting process of this case, the firefighters performed their legal duties, and the rescue was in line with the regulations, and there was no dereliction of duty, error or delay. The extension of fire rescue time is caused by the objective reasons such as insufficient water pressure, rust of water pump adapter valve and so on. In addition, the evidence in the case also proves that Zhu Xiaozhen, the victim, called 110 or 119 three times at 5:04:35, 5:05:55 and 5:08:52 on the same day. The call recording shows that Zhu Xiaozhen's last call time was about 5:11:48. At that time, he was very difficult to speak and breathe. During the call, he was unable to answer the 120 dispatcher's questions, and no child was heard during the call It can be concluded that Zhu Xiaozhen and his three children were in coma at 5:12. At the same time, the fire experts in the first instance said that the concentration of carbon monoxide in the smoke of the fire scene can generally reach 4% in 6 to 8 minutes after the fire, and when the concentration of carbon monoxide is 1%, people will be poisoned and die. If the trapped people in the fire scene cannot be evacuated within 6 to 7 minutes, they will be in danger of life. In this case, four victims hid in the north bedroom to avoid danger after the fire, while only a narrow floor glass window in the north bedroom can be pushed outward for more than 10 cm, so the smoke exhaust and ventilation effect is limited. Therefore, when firefighters first attacked and put out the fire, the possibility of survival of four victims was very slim, which was consistent with the conclusion that four victims died of carbon monoxide poisoning in the fire scene, which was proved by the opinion of forensic autopsy of public security organ. From the analysis of the death time of four victims, the death of four victims is the direct result of Mo Huanjing's intentional arson. At that time, fire rescue could not stop the death. Therefore, the defender's opinion that there is a causal relationship between the fire rescue and the consequences of this case, that there is a situation of multiple causes and one consequence in this case, and that Mo Huanjing should obtain the sentencing benefits of reducing the criminal responsibility and punishment cannot be established and is not accepted. Mo Huanjing put forward the appeal reason that the public security fire department did not fully embody the basic principle of "giving priority to the life safety of the people in distress" in the rescue, which was inconsistent with the facts found out, and could not be achieved