Providing indirect clues to help capture suspects

Providing indirect clues to assist in arresting suspects does not constitute meritorious service

the gist of this case

the defendant's behavior of assisting the judicial organ in arresting other suspect, as stipulated in Article 5 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the specific application of law in dealing with voluntary surrender and meritorious service, should be directly committed by the defendant himself. If the suspect is arrested with the assistance of the defendant's relatives, rather than his own behavior, it should not be regarded as meritorious service, but it should be considered as a discretionary lighter circumstance when applying the penalty

brief case

in March 2002, the defendant Wen Jian stole Li Guanjun's, and Li asked Wen for it unsuccessfully. On the evening of July 5, 2002, Wen's relatives invited Li Guanjun and Li Heyun to negotiate and deal with the matter at the wenyongqian coal mine in Wuai village, Chencun Township, Mianchi County, Henan Province. At about 9 p.m., the defendants Wen Jian and Li Guanjun had a quarrel over a toast. Wen Jian took out a kitchen knife and cut Li Guanjun's head and neck twice, killing Li Guanjun on the spot. Li Heyun stepped forward to block, and was cut on his face. The injury was minor. After committing the crime, the defendant Wen Jian escaped and was later arrested in Shenzhen

it was also found that after the defendant Wen Jian was brought to justice, he reported to the public security personnel that he knew Chen Wu, the main suspect of the "July 25, 2000" murder case in Mianchi County. A friend of his father had a good relationship with Chen Wu, and Chen could be arrested through his father's friends. He wrote a letter to his father Wen Yonggang about this situation and asked his father to assist the public security organ in arresting Chen Wu. After receiving the letter from his son Wen Jian, Wen Yonggang and his friends explored Chen Wu's whereabouts for many times, and finally got the exact hiding place of Chen Wu and informed the public security organ. On July 23rd, 2004, Mianchi County Public Security Bureau arrested Chen Wu suspected of intentional homicide and his brother CHEN Si suspected of harbouring Chen Wu in a small coal mine in Puding County, Anshun City, Guizhou Province

the prosecution believes that the act of assisting judicial organs to arrest other suspect, as stipulated in Article 5 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in dealing with voluntary surrender and meritorious service, should be directly committed by the criminals themselves. Wen Jian did not directly provide Chen Wu's whereabouts and hiding conditions. Chen Wu was arrested entirely because of the assistance of his relatives. Since it was not Wen Jian's own behavior, it should not be recognized as meritorious service

the defendant's defender believes that the defendant Wen Jian provided certain clues and requested his relatives to assist the public security organ in arresting other suspect, and the public security organ also arrested the suspect with the assistance of his relatives. Although it was not the result of Wen Jian's direct assistance, it was inseparable from the clues he provided and the behavior of requesting assistance, and it should be deemed to constitute meritorious service

reasons for judgment

Sanmenxia intermediate people's court in Henan Province concluded that the focus of the dispute in this case is: the defendant provided certain clues and asked his relatives to arrest the suspect, and then his relatives assisted the public security organ to arrest the suspect. Did the defendant constitute meritorious service

Sanmenxia intermediate people's court held that the act of providing indirect clues and requesting assistance was not an act of "assisting judicial organs to arrest other suspect" stipulated in Article 5 of the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the specific application of law in dealing with voluntary surrender and meritorious service, and should not be recognized as meritorious service, but should be considered as a discretionary lighter circumstance when applying the penalty. The reasons are as follows:

(I) the defendant Wen Jian provided indirect clues to ask his relatives for assistance in arresting other suspect, which is not a specific assistance δ and ψ The greater the value of is, it should not be recognized as meritorious service. First, in terms of the subject, the specific assistance in this case was made by the defendant Wen Jian's father and friends, not Wen Jian himself. The defendant Wen Jian did not know Chen Wu's whereabouts after he escaped, nor did he have the actual ability to assist the public security organ in catching Chen Wu. Secondly, objectively, the defendant Wen Jian wrote a letter asking his father to find an insider to assist in the arrest, which was not a specific act of assistance, and there was no objective causal relationship between the two and Chen Wu's arrest. It is true that the reason why Chen Wuzhi was arrested is related to the defendant Wen Jian's behavior of providing indirect clues and writing letters, but it cannot be concluded that the defendant Wen Jian's behavior belongs to specific assistance without analysis. The act of assistance needs to have specific content, which must be of substantial significance to the arrest of other criminal suspects who should inspect the operation of machinery. The defendant Wen Jian didn't mention Chen Wu's whereabouts in his letter to his father, but said that his father's friend knew Chen Wu's whereabouts and could find Chen Wu through this friend. According to the content of the communication, it was impossible to directly arrest suspect Chen Wu, and his communication itself did not have the function of directly assisting in the arrest. Chen Wuzhi was arrested mainly because of the help of his father and friends. The opinion that the defendant Wen Jian constituted meritorious service failed to notice that the assistance existed as a direct specific act and had an objective correlation with the consequences of the arrest. What the defendant Wen Jian expressed in his communication was only a willingness to ask for assistance, not the act of assistance itself, and there was no objective correlation between Chen Wu's arrest mainly for distributing various steels produced by local Angang, Shagang, Xinpu, Fengbao and other enterprises. If it is recognized that the act of assistance can be performed by others, and therefore as my meritorious performance, lenient punishment according to law will not only make the meritorious standard as one of the sentencing systems too wide, but also may damage the fairness and equality of the application of criminal law, which is not conducive to the reform of criminals

(II) the act of requesting assistance reflects the criminal's subjective intention of repentance and Atonement, which should be taken into full consideration when applying the penalty as a discretionary lighter circumstance. First, the defendant Wen Jian's personal freedom has been deprived according to law, and it is impossible to master Chen Wu's detailed whereabouts. Even if he has the intention to assist in the arrest, he is beyond his power. However, the defendant Wen Jian's behavior of providing indirect clues to ask for the assistance of his relatives did reflect his subjective will to atone for his meritorious deeds, indicating that whether the water level control of his main control of the humidification boiler water level is normal or not, the personal danger of his view has been weakened. Second, although the arrest of Chen Wu was not the result of the defendant Wen Jian's direct assistance, it cannot be denied that there is a certain connection between the two. The defendant Wen Jian's request for assistance itself is conducive to the smooth progress of national judicial activities