Who is Mao Zhijie?

Name of investigation: robbery case of Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun

Trial procedure: first instance

Classification of cases: criminal

WeChat official account:

Number of judgment document: (2003) J.Z.No. 15.

Type of judgment document: Other

Referee time: June 5, 2003

Court of acceptance: Jinhua Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province.

Full text of the case:

Jinhua Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province

Criminal incidental civil judgment

(2003) Jinzhong Bank Chu Er ZiNo. 15

Jinhua people's procuratorate, Zhejiang province.

Gong Yiquan, the plaintiff in the incidental civil action, is male, 1950,1October 20th, born in Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, and lives in Chencun, Fotang Town, Yiwu City. It is the father of the victim Gong Huaping.

Chen Aiqin, the plaintiff in the incidental civil action, is female, 1957, a native of Yiwu City, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, farmer, and lives in Chencun, Fotang Town, Yiwu City. It is the mother of the victim Gong Huaping.

Plaintiff Ding, female, 1980 was born in Yiwu, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, farmer, and lives in Chencun, Fotang Town, Yiwu City. It's the wife of the victim Gong Huaping.

Plaintiff in incidental civil action, Gong, female, born on June 5, 2002, is a baby and lives in Chencun, Fotang Town, Yiwu City. It is the daughter of the victim Gong Huaping.

The legal representative is Ding and Gong's mother.

Qiu Ji, the litigation agent of the plaintiff in the incidental civil action, is a lawyer of Zhejiang Zhezhong Law Firm.

Defendant Mao Zhijie, male, 1975 1 1.4 was born in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, Han nationality, junior high school education and farmer. Who lives in Group 3, Suanshan Village, Qi Xin Town, Beilun District, Ningbo. He was sentenced to eight years and six months in prison by Shaoxing Yuecheng District People's Court on June 1995+ 10/8 for committing robbery. Published on April 20, 20065438+0. Because of this case, he was detained by Fuyang Public Security Bureau on October 26th, 2002, and arrested by Yiwu Public Security Bureau on October 27th, 2002. Now detained in Yiwu detention center.

Defender Tong, lawyer of Zhejiang Yiyuan Law Firm.

Defendant Pan Senjun, also known as Pan Senjun, male, was born in Tonglu County, Zhejiang Province on June 1 973+1October1,Han nationality, primary school culture, farmer, and lives in Group 4, Panxiao Village, Shifu Town, Tonglu County. He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment by the People's Court of Tonglu County, Zhejiang Province on April 1994 for committing robbery and hooliganism. 2001May 1 1 released from prison. Because of this case, he was detained by Fuyang Public Security Bureau on October 4, 2002, and was arrested by Yiwu Public Security Bureau on October 27, 2002. Now detained in Yiwu detention center.

Defender Yang, lawyer of Zhejiang Heping Law Firm.

The People's Procuratorate of Jinhua City, Zhejiang Province accused the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun of committing robbery with indictmentNo. (2003) 14, and filed a public prosecution with our court on March 10, 2003. In the course of litigation, the plaintiff in the fifth incidental civil action filed an incidental civil action with our court. Our court formed a collegial panel according to law and held a public hearing to jointly hear the case. Jinhua Municipal People's Procuratorate appointed Zhang Zengwei, the acting prosecutor, to appear in court to support the public prosecution. Plaintiffs Gong Yiquan, Chen Aiqin, Ding and their agents ad litem Qiu Ji, defendant Mao Zhijie and his defender Tong, defendant Pan Senjun and his defender Yang attended the proceedings. The trial is now over.

Jinhua City People's Procuratorate sued and accused that from September to June, 2002, the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun committed four robberies in Wenling, Yiwu, Jiaxing and other places in this province for the purpose of illegal possession, and the value of robbed property was more than 3,000 yuan, resulting in the death of 1 person. In view of the criminal facts of the above allegations, the public prosecution agency read out and produced the statement of Yuan, the victim who did not appear in court, the testimony transcripts of more than ten witnesses, including Wu Huajun, Lou, Chen Zugao and Chen Shaoyou, the forensic autopsy report and autopsy photos, the DNA test report, fingerprint identification, on-site investigation transcripts, on-site maps, on-site photos, price appraisal conclusions, the household registration certificates of the two defendants, criminal judgment, and the criminal exit appraisal form. According to the above facts and evidence, the public prosecution agency believes that the actions of the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun have constituted robbery. The defendant is a recidivist. Draw punishment according to law.

The plaintiff in the incidental civil action claimed that the two defendants suffered heavy economic losses due to their criminal acts, requested a heavier punishment, and ordered the two defendants to compensate the economic losses of RMB 238,962.

Defendant Mao Zhijie argued that the second robbery alleged in the indictment was not what he did, and the stabbing with a knife was not the key part of the victim.

His defender Tong has no objection to the nature of the case. However, it was pointed out that the indictment accused the defendant Mao Zhijie of participating in the first and third robberies, and there was no other evidence to prove it except the confessions of the two defendants. Therefore, the facts of the two charges are unclear and the evidence is insufficient, so the alleged robbery cannot be established. In the second robbery, Pan Senjun, the second defendant in this case, was responsible for the intentional mention of the crime and the fatal injury to the victim. Pan also robbed the mobile phone. The defendant Mao Zhijie has a good attitude of pleading guilty and suggested that the collegial panel give him a chance to turn over a new leaf.

The defendant Pan Senjun has no objection to the criminal facts alleged in the indictment.

Professor Yang Guan, its defender, has no objection to the nature of the case and the accusation that the defendant Pan Senjun is a recidivist. However, it is pointed out that the evidence of the indictment accusing the defendant Pan Senjun of participating in the first and third robberies is insufficient and should not be recognized. Although there is no distinction between principal and accessory in this case, judging from the position and role of the two defendants in the robbery, the defendant Pan Senjun is relatively small; The defendant Pan Senjun has a good attitude of pleading guilty and actively compensates the economic losses of the relatives of the victims; After Fuyang was arrested in the robbery, he voluntarily confessed the heavier similar crimes that the public security organs have not yet mastered, and should be given a lighter punishment. At the same time, after he arrived at the case, he also exposed the fact that an accessory at large had a discretionary mitigating circumstance. He provided the public security organs with possible places for accomplices, and actively cooperated with the public security organs to solve the case, so he should be recognized as having rendered meritorious service. To sum up, I request a lighter punishment.

It was found through trial that the defendants Pan Senjun and Mao Zhijie met while serving their sentences in the Sixth Ward of Qiaosi Prison in Zhejiang Province. 200 1 April and May, released from prison, unemployed at home. One day in early September 2002, the defendant Pan Senjun went from Tonglu to Ningbo to play with the defendant Mao Zhijie. Two or three days later, they went to Wenling again to look for Zheng Moumou, a former cellmate in the same prison. Desperate, he plotted to rob and prepared two knives for the crime. At about eight or nine o'clock that night, when the two defendants stopped a taxi to the suburbs of Luqiao in the name of renting a car, Mao Zhijie, the defendant sitting in the back seat, took out the fruit knife holder he carried with him and threatened the driver's neck. The defendant Pan Senjun, who was sitting in the second seat, also held the driver with a knife and searched him. The two defendants * * * robbed more than 600 yuan and a Samsung mobile phone. The latter two sold their mobile phones to a store in Qixin Town, Ningbo for more than 300 yuan. Stolen money is the same as profligacy.

On September 10, 2002, the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun fled from Ningbo to Yiwu with two knives, waiting for an opportunity to rob them. At about 1 o'clock the next morning, the two defendants stopped taking the Zhejiang G M0873 taxi driven by the victim Gong Huaping in the name of renting a car near Qingyan Liucun, Jiangdong Office, Yiwu, to a path opposite to Guo Da Hotel, Huangyuan Road, Yiwu, about 100 meters from south to north. Defendant Mao Zhi sat in the second seat. Gong Huaping resisted and tried to escape. Defendant Mao Zhijie stabbed the victim Gong Huaping with a knife. The defendant Pan Senjun, who was sitting in the back seat, got off the bus and stood against the cab door. Then he opened the door and stabbed the victim Gong Huaping in the back with a knife. The death of the victim Gong Huaping was caused by two defendants. The defendant Pan Senjun robbed the victim Gong Huaping of more than 200 yuan and a Nokia 82 10 mobile phone worth 1094 yuan. The stolen mobile phone was stolen by the defendant Mao Zhijie after he fled back to Ningbo, and the proceeds were RMB 500 yuan. After forensic identification, the victim Gong Huaping was stabbed in the left and right chest and left back by a stinger, causing heart, lung and aorta to rupture and die.

One day in September 2002, the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun fled from Ningbo to Jiaxing, and then bought two daggers for committing crimes at street stalls in the city. The next afternoon, around 10, the two defendants fled to a park near the urban railway station and saw a man and a woman sitting on the grass, threatening them with a knife and taking away their mobile phones, 50 yuan and Motorola. The latter two sold their mobile phones to a mobile phone dealership in downtown Ningbo at a price of 100 yuan.

At 7 o'clock on the evening of June 3, 2002, the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun fled to the vicinity of Hangzhou Zhijiang Ferry Terminal after pre-planning, and boarded the Zhejiang A4 1223 minivan driven by the victim Yuan in the name of renting a car. When the vehicle drove to the vicinity of Chengdong Market, Fuchun Street, Fuyang City, the defendant Pan Senjun held a fruit knife and held Yuan from behind with a hoop in the other hand. The defendant Pan Senjun was captured by the masses on the way to escape from the scene. Defendant Mao Zhijie fled the scene and was arrested and brought to justice by Fuyang Public Security Bureau in Wenling on the 26th of the same month.

During the trial in our court, the relatives of the defendant Pan Senjun compensated the plaintiff in the incidental civil action for economic losses of RMB 6,000.

The evidences to prove the above facts are: 1, witness Wu Huajun and Lou's testimony. On the morning of September 1 1 Sunday, 2002, two of them patrolled the roadside of Huangyuan Road in Yiwu, about 100 meters away from Guo Da Hotel, and found Zhejiang G.2. Witness Chen Zugao's testimony confirmed that he met his cousin Gong Huaping at the Jiangdong Passenger Parking Lot in Yiwu on the evening of September 20th, 2002 1 10. At 2 o'clock in the morning, he called Gong Huaping's Nokia 82 10 mobile phone to ask his cousin to have dinner at night. The mobile phone was connected, but it had entered the call service. Soon, he learned that his cousin was killed and rushed to the scene. After identifying the body, it is indeed the fact of Gong Huaping. 3. Witness Shao Chen testified that Gong Huaping was driving a taxi to pick up passengers at Jiangdong Bus Terminal in Yiwu at 1 am on the day of the crime. They chatted and learned that Gong Huaping made a turnover of around 270 yuan. At about 2: 30, he heard that Gong Huaping had an accident and immediately called Gong's mobile phone, but it was turned off. The testimony of witness Wu Sijun confirmed that he met Zhejiang G M0873 taxi in the early morning of the incident 1 hour. Who was driving at that time? He didn't see it clearly, but the owner was Fu Jianming. The testimony of witness Fu Jianming confirmed that the taxi with the license plate of Zhejiang G M0873 was rented by him from others. On September, 2002, 10/0, he hired Gong Huaping to help him drive the night bus. At 5: 50 pm that day, he handed the car to Gong Huaping at the south gate of Yiwu. At 2: 30 the next morning, someone called his mobile phone to tell him that the car had an accident, so he rushed to the scene and learned that Gong Huaping had been killed. The testimony of witness Ding confirmed that her husband Gong Huaping had been helping people drive taxis. In April 2002, Gong wanted to have a baby because she was pregnant and stayed at home to take care of it. At 8: 00 pm on September 9, a taxi owner called her husband to let him drive. At 5 pm on June 5438+00, her husband took a pack of clothes and a mobile phone to drive a taxi after dinner. 7. The testimony of witness Chen Xinghua confirmed that he received a phone call from his nephew Gong Huaping at 1 26 am on the day of the crime, followed by a noise. I called back three times and couldn't get through. At 5: 20, he called Huaping's mobile phone again and still turned it off. 10 minutes later, I learned that Huaping had an accident. 8. The testimony of witnesses Lou Xishan and Wang Honghui confirmed that at 6: 438 on September 2002, two people, one big and one small, took a taxi driven by the other. Later, Lou Xishan refused to take the bus because of suspicious behavior, and after registering out of the city, he asked Wang Honghui to drive the car back to Yiwu city on the grounds that he had left something in the hotel. 9. The forensic autopsy report and photos of Yiwu Public Security Bureau prove that the deceased Gong Huaping was stabbed in the left and right chest and left back by a stinger, which caused the heart, lungs and aorta to rupture and die. 10, Gong Yi Trace Inspection (2002)No. 138 of Yiwu Public Security Bureau, and the photo prove that the blood fingerprint 1 1 extracted from the scene of robbery and murder in the street opposite to Guo Da Hotel, Jiangyuan Road, Yiwu City in the early morning of September 2002 was left by Mao Zhijie's right thumb. 1 1. The forensic DNA test report of Zhejiang Public Security Bureau proves that the blood on the cab door of Zhejiang GM0873 taxi was left by Pan Senjun; The blood on the windshield and the blood on the right front wheel blade of the taxi were left by the deceased Gong Huaping; 12. Records of the on-site investigation of Yiwu Public Security Bureau, maps and photos prove the location of the crime scene and taxi parking, the presentation of the victim's body and the distribution of blood and plastic bags. During the trial, the scene map and photos were produced, which were identified by the two defendants and confirmed as the robbery scene. On the afternoon of February 30, 2002, the defendant Mao Zhijie led the Yiwu Public Security Bureau to identify the facts of the crime scene. 14, the shopping invoice and the price appraisal conclusion of Yiwu Price Bureau confirmed that the Nokia 82 10 mobile phone robbed by Gong Huaping was worth 1094 yuan. 15, victim Yuan's statement: On the evening of June 30, 2003, they took the van they were driving to Fuyang near Zhijiang Wharf in Hangzhou. When the garage arrived near Fuyang East Market, two riders threatened with knives and snatched more than 200 yuan and a Motorola V998 mobile phone. 16, the testimony of witnesses,, and Yu confirmed that the defendant Pan Senjun was arrested by three people after robbing the victim Yuan. 17, the price appraisal conclusion of Fuyang Municipal Price Bureau, which proves that the robbed Motorola V998 mobile phone is worth RMB 680 yuan. 18, the documentary evidence of Fuyang Public Security Bureau was captured, which proved in the volume. 19. The identity certificates of the victim Gong Huaping, the defendants Mao Zhijie, Pan Senjun and five plaintiffs in incidental civil litigation have been filed to confirm their respective identities. 20. criminal judgment, the criminal case execution notice and the prisoner's exit appraisal form, which prove that the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun are recidivists. 2 1. Documentary evidence shows that the relatives of the defendant Pan Senjun paid RMB6,000 to the plaintiff in the incidental civil action. 22. The confessions of the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun are in the volume, which can be mutually confirmed with the time, place, object, behavior process and harmful consequences of the four robbery crimes in this case, and are consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case.

The above-mentioned evidence was cross-examined in court, and both defendants' defenders pointed out that the public prosecution agency accused the two defendants of the first and third robberies in the indictment, and there was no other evidence to prove it except the confessions of the two defendants, so the facts of the two accusations were unclear and the evidence was insufficient, so they could not be established. We believe that the defendant's confession is also one of the evidences according to Item 4 of Article 42 of the Criminal Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC). In this case, the two defendants confessed the time, place and course of the first and third robberies, as well as the types and quantities of the robbed goods, which can confirm each other and prove that the two robberies were carried out by the two defendants. Therefore, the above defense opinions will not be adopted by our court. In addition, in the * * * accomplice crime in this case, the two defendants planned in advance, prepared robbery tools and looked for targets. In the implementation of specific robbery, they all used the threat of violence and * * * to cause death, with equal status and function. Therefore, the defense opinions put forward by the two defenders that their clients committed robbery are relatively light compared with each other, which are inconsistent with the facts ascertained by our court and will not be adopted by our court. The rest of the evidence has no objection from both the prosecution and the defense, and this court confirms it.

Our court believes that the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun committed robbery four times by violent means for the purpose of illegal possession, and robbed others' property on the spot, resulting in one death, all of which constituted robbery. The public prosecutor accused the two defendants of their crimes. This court supports it. 2. If the defendant commits a serious crime, he shall be given a heavier punishment according to law. Defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment for robbery. After the execution of the penalty, they committed robbery again within five years. They are recidivists and should be severely punished. After the defendant Pan Senjun was brought to justice, he was able to expose the same criminal facts of his accomplices and truthfully confess the heavier robbery facts that the judicial organs have not yet mastered, which is not meritorious service and should generally be given a lighter punishment. However, this court believes that although the defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun were sentenced for crimes, they did not really change their outlook on life and values during their prison terms. After he was released from prison, he failed to exchange his labor for legal income, serve the society and seek survival. Instead, I idled around for more than a year, and then in a short month, I used violent means to rob and commit crimes many times. Cruel means, bad circumstances, resulting in serious consequences of one death. This is a heinous crime. Therefore, the defense opinion put forward by his defender requesting a lighter punishment was not adopted by the court because of the serious crimes committed by the two men. The reasonable part of the plaintiff's claim for compensation for economic losses in the incidental civil action is supported by our court, but it should be compensated according to the situation. In order to severely crack down on serious criminal activities, maintain public order and protect citizens' personal and property rights from illegal infringement, according to Article 263 (4), Article 57 (1), Article 56 (1), Article 59, Article 25 (1) and Article 65 (1) of the Criminal Law of People's Republic of China (PRC),

1. Defendant Mao Zhijie committed robbery and was sentenced to death and deprived of political rights for life; And confiscate all personal property.

Second, the defendant Pan Senjun committed robbery, sentenced to death and deprived of political rights for life; And confiscate all personal property.

3. Defendants Mao Zhijie and Pan Senjun compensated plaintiffs Gong Yiquan, Chen Aiqin, Ding, and Gong for economic losses totaling 50,000 yuan; Among them, the defendant Mao Zhijie bears 30,000 yuan, and the defendant Pan Senjun bears 20,000 yuan (6,000 yuan has been paid); 2. The defendants shall be jointly and severally liable for each other (the compensation shall be paid within 30 days after this judgment takes effect).

If you refuse to accept this judgment, you can appeal to the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province through our court or directly within ten days from the second day of receiving the judgment. If a written appeal is filed, one original and two copies of the appeal shall be submitted.

Presiding Judge: Janice

Examiner: Zhuge Jian Hong.

Acting Judge: Stand up.

Time: June 5, 2003

Bookkeeper: Fan