Precedent No. 47/2021/AL was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on November 25, 2021, and published under Decision No. 594/QD-CA dated December 31, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a precedent?
Precedents are arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments or decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and published by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as precedents for Courts to study and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HDTP)
A selected precedent must meet the following criteria:
– Possess value in clarifying legal regulations where there are different interpretations; analyze and explain legal issues and events; and point out principles, methods of handling, or legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrate justice for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Be exemplary;
– Possess guiding value for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 47/2021/AL on the determination of the charges in cases where the defendant uses a dangerous weapon to stab the victim in vital areas of the body
2.1. Source of the precedent
Cassation Decision No. 15/2020/HS-GDT dated August 7, 2020, of the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case of “Murder” against defendant Nguyen Dinh D.
Location of the precedent’s content:
Paragraph 2 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the precedent’s content
– Precedent situation:
The defendant used a knife, which is a dangerous weapon, to stab the victim’s abdomen, a vital area of the human body. The fact that the victim did not die was outside the subjective intent of the defendant.
– Legal solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the defendant bears criminal responsibility for the crime of “Murder”.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
– Article 18; points a, n Clause 1 Article 93 Penal Code of Vietnam1999 (corresponding to Article 15; points a, n Clause 1 Article 123 Criminal Code of Vietnam 2015).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Using a knife to stab”; “Dangerous weapon”; “Abdominal area”; “Vital area of the body”; “Murder”.
CASE CONTENT:
Around 7:00 PM on December 9, 2013, Nguyen Dinh D went to the house of Mr. Ha Dang H in L Hamlet, T Commune, C District, Hanoi to eat and drink alcohol with several others, including Dang Hung T and Phung Xuan S. During the meal, S and T had an argument. S called T out to the yard and slapped T. T apologized, and both returned to continue drinking. About 10 minutes later, when D went outside, S and T also followed him to the dike. S slapped T once, causing T to fall. Seeing this, D ran over to ask T if he was okay. T cried and said: “My parents don’t hit me, but he did. I’ll kill him.” T ran to find an object to hit S. D ran after T, hugged him, and said: “Are you drunk yet? Do you recognize your brother?” T replied: “Yes, Brother Hai.” At this time, Mr. Cao Van C and Mr. Duong Van T1 arrived on a motorcycle. Mr. T1 stopped to smoke a cigarette. Mr. C said to S: “He is my nephew; I haven’t even said anything about you hitting him.” D intervened, pushing T and S into Mr. H’s house.
D felt angry upon hearing Mr. C’s words to S, so he went into the yard of Mr. H’s house, took a sharp knife, and went to the dike where Mr. C and Mr. T1 were standing. D said: “Do you guys like fighting that much, adding fuel to the fire?” C replied: “I like fighting, I like adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?” D pointed the knife at Mr. C’s face and said: “You like fighting?” then stabbed Mr. C once in the abdomen. Mr. C fled. D turned back, grabbed Mr. T1’s collar, and stabbed Mr. T1 once. Mr. T1 fled, and D and S chased after him. D caught up, grabbed Mr. T1’s collar, while S slapped Mr. T1 on the head and face and kicked him. D used the knife to stab Mr. T1 multiple times, causing him to fall face down. D continued to stab Mr. T1 three more times until he collapsed. Seeing Mr. T1 unconscious, D and S fled.
After fleeing for a distance, Mr. Cao Van C went to Mr. H’s house to get a hoe and returned, meeting S. Mr. C raised the hoe handle to strike, and S fled into Mr. H’s house to report the fight. Mr. C continued running and met D, who was holding the knife. Mr. C raised the hoe handle and struck once. D raised his arm to block, and was hit in the head and left hand. D fled to Mr. H’s house, took his motorcycle, and went home. On the way, D threw the knife into a water ditch. People took Mr. T1 and Mr. C to the emergency room, but Mr. T1 passed away. On December 10, 2013, D surrendered to the C District Police.
In Forensic Autopsy Conclusion No. 8251/PC54 (PY) dated December 31, 2013, the Criminal Science Department of the Hanoi Police concluded: the cause of death for Mr. Duong Van T1 was shock due to acute blood loss and acute respiratory failure.
In Forensic Injury Conclusion No. 203/TTPY dated May 6, 2014, by the Forensic Center of the Hanoi Department of Health, the injuries of Mr. Cao Van C at the time of assessment were: soft tissue scars, fracture of the 10th left rib, no effusion or pneumothorax; the injuries were likely caused by a sharp object; the health damage rate was 05%.
In First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 47/2015/HSST dated February 5, 2015, the Hanoi People’s Court applied points a and n Clause 1 Article 93; point p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code, sentencing Nguyen Dinh D to death for the crime of “Murder”.
On February 10, 2015, Nguyen Dinh D appealed for a reduction in the sentence.
In Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6, 2016, the High People’s Court in Hanoi dismissed Nguyen Dinh D’s appeal, applied points a and n Clause 1 Article 93; points b and p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46 of the 1999 Penal Code, sentencing Nguyen Dinh D to death for the crime of “Murder”.
In Cassation Protest Decision No. 16/QD-VKSTC dated November 29, 2019, the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy decided to protest First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 47/2015/HSST dated February 5, 2015, of the Hanoi People’s Court and Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi regarding Nguyen Dinh D; requesting the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation trial, annul part of the First-instance and Appellate Criminal Judgments regarding the charges and sentence for Nguyen Dinh D for reinvestigation.
At the cassation hearing, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy requested the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court to accept the protest of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] Regarding the behavior of Nguyen Dinh D toward Mr. Cao Van C:
[2] Although there was no prior conflict between Nguyen Dinh D and Mr. Cao Van C, based on Mr. C’s words: “I like fighting, I like adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?”, D held a knife (a type of knife used for rattan and bamboo products, 11cm wooden handle, 13.5cm iron blade, slightly curved sharp tip, 2.5cm at the widest part) pointing it at Mr. C’s face saying “You like fighting?” and then used the knife to stab Mr. C once in the abdomen, causing Mr. C to flee. Thus, solely because of Mr. C’s challenging and provocative words, D used a sharp knife, which is a dangerous weapon, to stab Mr. C’s abdominal area (left flank), which is a vital area of the human body. According to the forensic conclusion, Mr. C suffered a 05% injury rate, and this was the injury at the time of assessment (nearly 05 months after the incident), not the injury at the time the crime occurred; therefore, it does not accurately reflect Mr. C’s injury and the nature and level of danger of the criminal behavior. The fact that Mr. C did not die was outside D’s subjective intent. Therefore, D’s aforementioned behavior satisfies the elements of the crime of “Murder”, as an attempted crime with a thuggish nature.
[3] Regarding the behavior of Nguyen Dinh D toward Mr. Duong Van T1:
[4] Mr. Duong Van T1 was traveling with Mr. Cao Van C. Mr. T1 had no prior conflict with Nguyen Dinh D. At the time of the incident, Mr. T1 used no provocative words or aggressive actions against D. However, after stabbing Mr. Canh and Mr. Canh fleeing, D turned back, grabbed Mr. T1’s collar, and stabbed Mr. T1. As Mr. T1 fled, D chased and stabbed him multiple times, causing Mr. T1 to fall face down. D continued to use the knife to stab Mr. T1 three more times in the back until Mr. T1 was unconscious. Consequently, Mr. T1 died due to shock from acute blood loss and acute respiratory failure. D’s act of murdering Mr. T1 constitutes a crime with a thuggish nature.
[5] As analyzed above, despite having no prior conflict, D simultaneously used a knife to stab the vital areas of 02 victims, resulting in 01 death and 01 injury. The trial court and the appellate court convicted Nguyen Dinh D of “Murder” according to point a (killing multiple people) and point n (thuggish nature) Clause 1 Article 93 of the 1999 Penal Code with sufficient grounds.
[6] Although during the case proceedings, Nguyen Dinh D gave honest declarations and actively compensated the victim’s family, D’s criminal behavior was particularly serious, demonstrating a thuggish, aggressive, and determined nature, disregarding the lives of others. Therefore, the trial court and appellate court’s decision to sentence Nguyen Dinh D to death for “Murder” is in accordance with the law.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Pursuant to Clause 4 Article 382, Clause 1 Article 388, Article 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
1. Do not accept the protest of the Procurator General of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.
2. Uphold Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hanoi regarding the charges and penalties for Nguyen Dinh D.
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[2] Although there was no prior conflict between Nguyen Dinh D and Mr. Cao Van C, based on Mr. C’s words “I like fighting, I like adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?”, D held a knife (a type of knife used for rattan and bamboo products, 11cm wooden handle, 13.5cm iron blade, slightly curved sharp tip, 2.5cm at the widest part) pointing it at Mr. C’s face saying “You like fighting?” and then used the knife to stab Mr. C once in the abdomen, causing Mr. C to flee. Thus, solely because of Mr. C’s challenging and provocative words, D used a sharp knife, which is a dangerous weapon, to stab Mr. C’s abdominal area (left flank), which is a vital area of the human body. According to the forensic conclusion, Mr. C suffered a 05% injury rate, and this was the injury at the time of assessment (nearly 05 months after the incident), not the injury at the time the crime occurred; therefore, it does not accurately reflect Mr. C’s injury and the nature and level of danger of the criminal behavior. The fact that Mr. C did not die was outside D’s subjective intent. Therefore, D’s aforementioned behavior satisfies the elements of the crime of “Murder”, as an attempted crime with a thuggish nature.”
