Chi Baoshan intentional homicide case

Case Category: Criminal Litigation Case

Case number of the judicial document: (2024) Supreme People's Court Criminal Review No. 87632410

Effective date of the court document: September 6, 2024

Judicial Authority: Supreme People's Court

Keywords: Review successful

Counseling Attorney: Wei Shiyu, He Zhiguang

Basic Facts of the Case:

   On September 23, 2022, the Intermediate People's Court of Dandong City, Liaoning Province, issued Criminal Judgment No. (2022) Liao 06 Xing Chu 8, finding the defendant Chi Moumou guilty of intentional homicide and sentencing him to death, with deprivation of political rights for life. After the judgment was pronounced, Chi Moumou filed an appeal. On October 13, 2023, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province, after conducting a lawful trial, issued Criminal Ruling No. (2023) Liao Xing Zhong 1, dismissing the appeal and upholding the original sentence, and duly submitted the case to the Supreme People's Court for approval in accordance with the law. During the review period by the Supreme People's Court, the defendant Chi Moumou retained lawyers Wei Shiyu and He Zhiguang from Liaoning Tongfang (Beijing) Law Firm to provide his defense. The Supreme People's Court formed a collegial panel to review the case, legally interrogated the defendant, listened to the opinions of the defense attorneys, and examined the views of the Supreme People's Procuratorate. The review has now been concluded.

The Dandong Intermediate People’s Court and the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court found that the defendant, Chi Moumou, along with the victims Wei Mou (male, 43 years old at the time), Wei’s wife Zhang Moumou (deceased at age 44), and Zhang’s mother Wang Moumou (deceased at age 63), operated adjacent stalls on the pedestrian street in Fengcheng City, Liaoning Province, and the two sides had long-standing conflicts. On the morning of August 11, 2021, Chi Moumou again argued and physically fought with Wei Mou and Zhang Moumou over the stall issue. Wei Mou called the police, and the local police station subsequently mediated and resolved the dispute. Around 8:00 a.m. on the 13th, Chi Moumou demanded that Wei Mou apologize for being beaten on the 11th at his stall on the Fengcheng pedestrian street. The two once again got into an argument. Wei Mou then drove away on an electric tricycle. Filled with resentment, Chi Moumou developed homicidal intentions and decided to take revenge. Chi Moumou picked up an axe he usually used for selling goods, chased after Wei Mou to a stall opposite the Dushi Shengyuan Bathhouse on the pedestrian street, and repeatedly struck Wei Mou’s head and neck with the axe. Wei Mou immediately fled toward his own stall. Chi Moumou pursued Wei Mou to the entrance of the Old Suburban Branch of the Daily Necessities Company in Fengcheng City, where he encountered Zhang Moumou, who had come running to help. Chi Moumou grabbed Zhang Moumou by the head and struck her repeatedly with the axe. Zhang Moumou broke free and ran toward the entrance of the Old Suburban Branch of the Daily Necessities Company, but Chi Moumou caught up with her and continued to strike her head and neck multiple times with the axe, causing her to fall to the ground seriously injured. Chi Moumou then continued chasing Wei Mou, and when he reached the entrance of a dumpling shop, he encountered Wang Moumou. Chi Moumou struck Wang Moumou repeatedly on the head and neck with the axe, causing her to fall to the ground. Unable to catch Wei Mou, Chi Moumou returned to the scene and struck Wang Moumou once on the head and repeatedly struck Zhang Moumou on the head, resulting in Zhang Moumou suffering complete severance of the cervical blood vessels, the third cervical vertebra, and the cervical spinal cord, leading to central nervous system dysfunction and acute massive blood loss, ultimately causing her death. Wang Moumou suffered complete severance of the first and second cervical vertebrae and the cervical spinal cord, as well as severance of the cervical blood vessels, also resulting in central nervous system dysfunction and acute massive blood loss, which led to her death. Wei Mou sustained first-degree minor injuries due to facial trauma, as well as three second-degree minor injuries and three slight injuries to various parts of his body, including the skin and cranium. Afterwards, Chi Moumou dialed 110 to report the incident and waited at the scene. Police officers arrived promptly and apprehended him.

The Supreme People's Court holds that the defendant, Chi Moumou, intentionally and unlawfully deprived others of their lives, and his actions thus constitute the crime of intentional homicide. Chi Moumou killed two persons in public and inflicted minor injuries on one other person. The circumstances of the crime are particularly egregious, the methods employed were cruel, and the consequences and gravity of the offense are exceptionally serious; therefore, he should be punished according to law. Given that this case was triggered by an escalation of civil disputes, and that Chi Moumou turned himself in and confessed his guilt after committing the crime, accepting punishment and showing remorse, he may not be sentenced to death and executed immediately. Consequently, the court adopts, in accordance with the law, the defense counsel’s view that Chi Moumou should not be sentenced to death. The court hereby rules as follows:

1. The criminal ruling (Liao Xing Zhong No. 1 of 2023) issued by the Liaoning Provincial Higher People’s Court, upholding the death sentence and lifelong deprivation of political rights imposed on the defendant for intentional homicide in the first instance, is not approved. 2. The ruling of the Liaoning High Court is hereby revoked. 3. The case is remanded to the Liaoning High Court for a retrial.

Case Highlights ：

Can the defendant be sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve if he/she killed three people, seriously injured two others, and the victims’ families have expressed that they do not forgive him/her?

  The defense arguments are as follows: First, I have no objection to the indictment’s allegation that the defendant committed intentional homicide.

The defense counsel only pleaded guilty and accepted punishment for Chi Moumou, and argued for a lighter sentence.

The defendant has the following mitigating circumstances:

First, the defendant has pleaded guilty and accepted punishment, and both the defendant and his/her family members have demonstrated a sincere willingness to actively compensate the victim and his/her family. In accordance with the “Guiding Opinions on the Work of Making Sentencing Recommendations in Cases Involving Guilty Pleas and Acceptance of Punishment” issued by the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, as well as the “Latest Standards for Filing and Sentencing Criminal Cases in Liaoning Province,” the defense counsel believes that the defendant should be given a lighter sentence.

Second, the defendant has surrendered himself. In accordance with Article 1 of the “Interpretation by the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in Handling Self-Surrender and Meritorious Service” and Paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Criminal Law, the defense counsel argues that the defendant should be given a lighter punishment.

Third, the dispute between the defendant and the neighboring party arose from their respective use of stalls (street vending). In light of the spirit expressed in the “Minutes of the National Symposium on Criminal Trial Work for Maintaining Rural Stability,” which emphasizes that the application of the death penalty must be approached with utmost caution, the defense counsel argues that the defendant should be given a lighter sentence.

Fourth, the victim was at fault; the defendant and the victim had previously engaged in a fight over a dispute. In light of the “Notice issued by the Supreme People’s Court on Printing and Distributing the Minutes of the National Symposium on Criminal Trial Work for Maintaining Rural Stability,” the “Notice issued by the Supreme People’s Court on Printing and Distributing the Several Opinions on Providing Judicial Guarantees for Building a Socialist Harmonious Society,” and Guiding Case No. 19 from the “Criminal Trial Reference” compiled by the First Division of Criminal Trials of the Supreme People’s Court, the defense counsel argues that the defendant should be given a lighter sentence.

Fifth, the defendant committed the crime on a sudden impulse, making it a passion-driven offense. The instrument used in the crime was also an item sold at a street stall. The defendant’s subjective malicious intent was not deep, and the defense counsel argues that the defendant should be given a lighter sentence.

Sixth, the victim’s family has issued a letter of forgiveness.

Seventh, although the victim’s family member, Jia Moumou, stated in both the first and second trials that they absolutely refused to forgive Chi Moumou, on August 29, 2022, they had already reached a compensation and forgiveness agreement with Chi Moumou’s family. Now, their refusal to forgive clearly violates the principle of honesty and good faith, and the court should not provide protection for such dishonest behavior.

In summary, in this case of intentional homicide, the defendant’s act was a spur-of-the-moment killing, and its subjective maliciousness is significantly lower than that of a premeditated murder. The defendant was simply carried away by a momentary impulse, lacking rational control. The method and means employed in the killing were neither carefully considered nor planned in advance—rather, the crime arose spontaneously and was committed on the spur of the moment. Such crimes, being spontaneous and accidental in nature, are driven by simple motives and exhibit relatively low subjective malice. Consequently, they do not pose a particularly severe threat to the stability and order of social life.

The defense counsel believes that Considering the objective facts—ranging from the relationship between the defendant and the victim prior to the incident, to the causes of the crime itself; from the victim’s own wrongful conduct to the defendant’s psychological reactions at the time of the incident; and from the entire course of the incident to the defendant’s behavior after the crime—there is no doubt that the defendant is neither monstrously evil nor beyond redemption. Re-educating and rehabilitating the defendant will not pose a significant threat to society. Moreover, given the aforementioned mitigating or extenuating circumstances that may be taken into account under the law or at the court’s discretion, and in accordance with the principle enshrined in China’s Criminal Law—that “education takes precedence over punishment”—the defense counsel earnestly hopes that the collegiate panel will impose a lenient sentence, granting the defendant, Chi Moumou, a second chance to reform himself and start anew!

On September 6, 2024, the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China issued Criminal Ruling No. (2024) Supreme Law Criminal Ruling 87632410, ruling as follows:

1. The criminal ruling (Liao Xing Zhong No. 1, 2023) issued by the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court, which upheld the first-instance sentence of death and lifelong deprivation of political rights imposed on the defendant Chi Moumou for intentional homicide, is not approved.
2. Revoke the criminal ruling (2023) Liao Xing Zhong No. 1 issued by the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court, which upheld the first-instance sentence of death and lifelong deprivation of political rights imposed on the defendant Chi Moumou for the crime of intentional homicide.
3. Send it back to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's Court for a retrial.

Typical significance ：

After accepting the mandate from the family of Chi Moumou, the defense attorney meticulously examined and carefully analyzed the available evidence. The attorney discovered that this case stemmed from a passionate killing triggered by a neighborhood dispute arising from a private conflict. In this case, the victim bore some degree of fault. Moreover, the defendant voluntarily turned himself in and pleaded guilty, accepting the punishment proposed by the prosecution. Relying on various legal provisions that provide for mitigating circumstances, the defense attorney argued that the defendant had both factual and legal grounds for sparing his life. During the first-instance representation, the defense attorney actively encouraged the defendant’s family to engage in negotiations with the victim and her family, ultimately reaching an agreement on compensation and mutual forgiveness. Although later the victim’s family indicated to the court that they did not forgive the defendant, based on the principle of estoppel, the court could still impose a lighter sentence on the defendant. Therefore, the defense attorney consistently maintained his defense stance, repeatedly communicating and coordinating with the investigating authorities, and eventually secured a ruling that the death penalty would not be approved.

Lawyer’s Insights:

Ensuring the proper implementation of the law and upholding social fairness and justice are the fundamental requirements for lawyers under the new Lawyers Law—and these are precisely what drive social harmony and progress. Practice has shown that cases involving lawyer participation help facilitate the resolution of disputes, assist public security organs, procuratorates, and courts in ascertaining the facts of a case and applying the law correctly according to the law, and ensure the fair resolution of disputes. Lawyers bear a professional responsibility in safeguarding social fairness and justice; after all, lawyers are legal professionals, and at the heart of the law lie fairness and justice.

As a lawyer, one must not only respect the facts but also apply the law appropriately. More importantly, one needs to strike a balance between facts and the law. This requires not only solid foundational skills but also the art of mastering the law. Excellent interpersonal skills are an essential quality for a top-notch lawyer. To this end, in my future practice, I will intensify my learning, continually enrich myself, and build up my confidence. I will strive to remain neither humble nor arrogant, neither hasty nor impatient, and in my interactions with others, I will find my true self and achieve my long-term career goals in the legal profession.