CASE LAW NO. 47/2021/AL

On the determination of the offense in cases where the defendant uses a dangerous weapon to stab a vital part of the victim’s body

Approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on November 25^th, 2021, and published under Decision No. 594/QĐ-CA dated December 31^st, 2021, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.

Source of the Case Law:

The Cassation Decision No. 15/2020/HS-GĐT dated August 7^th, 2020, of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case of “Murder” against the defendant Nguyễn Đình Đ.

Location of the Case Law’s Content:

Paragraph 2 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Summary of the Case Law:

– Case Background:

The defendant used a knife, a dangerous weapon, to stab the victim’s abdomen, which is a vital part of the human body. The fact that the victim did not die is not what the defendant intented.

– Legal Resolution:

In this case, the Court must determine that the defendant bears criminal liability for the crime of “Murder”.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

– Article 18; Points a and n Clause 1 Article 93 of the 1999 Criminal Code (corresponding to Article 15; Points a and n Clause 1 Article 123 of the 2015 Criminal Code).

Keywords:

“Stabbing with a knife”; “Dangerous weapon”; “Abdomen”; “Vital part of the body”; “Murder”.

CASE DETAILS

At approximately 7:00 PM on December 9^th, 2013, Nguyễn Đình Đ went to the house of Hà Đăng H in Thôn L, T Commune, C District, Hà Nội to have dinner and drink alcohol with several other individuals, including Đặng Hùng T and Phùng Xuân S. During the meal, S and T had a verbal altercation. S called T outside and slapped him. T apologized, and both returned to continue drinking.

About 10 minutes later, Đ went outside, followed by S and T. S slapped T again, causing him to fall to the ground. Đ ran over and asked T if he was alright, to which T cried and said, “My parents don’t hit me, but he did. I’m going to kill him.” T then ran off to find something to hit S with. Đ followed and held T back, asking, “Are you drunk? Do you recognize me?” T responded, “Yes, Brother Hai.”

At this moment, Mr. Cao Văn C and Mr. Dương Văn T1 arrived on a motorbike. T1 stopped to smoke, and Mr. C said to S, “He’s my nephew, and you hit him. I haven’t even said anything yet.” Đ intervened, pushing T and S back into H’s house.

Hearing Mr. C’s words, Đ became angry and went into H’s yard, grabbed a sharp knife, and returned to where Mr. C and Mr. T1 were standing by the dyke. Đ said, “Do you guys like fighting that much, adding fuel to the fire like that?” Mr. C responded, “I like fighting, so I am adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?” Đ pointed the knife at Mr. C’s face and said, “You want to fight?” then stabbed Mr. C in the abdomen.

Mr. C ran away, and Đ turned to grab Mr. T1’s collar and stabbed him as well. Mr. T1 ran away, and Đ and S chased after him. Đ caught up, grabbed Mr. T1’s collar, and S slapped Mr. T1’s face and head, kicked him. Đ stabbed Mr. T1 multiple times, causing Mr. T1 to fall face down. Đ then stabbed Mr. T1 three more times until he collapsed. When Mr. T1 lay unconscious, Đ and S fled.

Mr. C, having run a short distance, entered H’s house, grabbed a hoe, and returned to find S. Mr. C raised the hoe to strike S, but S ran into H’s house to report the fight. Mr. C continued running and encountered Đ, who was holding a knife. Mr. C swung the hoe, hitting Đ’s head and left hand. Đ fled to H’s house, took a motorbike, and left. On the way, Đ threw the knife into a water ditch. Others took Mr. T1 and Mr. C to the hospital, but Mr. T1 succumbed to his injuries. On December 10^th, 2013, Đ surrendered to the Police of District C.

In the Forensic Examination Report No. 8251/PC54 (PY) dated December 31^st, 2013, the Criminal Forensic Department of the Police of Hà Nội City concluded that:

The cause of Mr. Dương Văn T1’s death was acute blood loss and acute respiratory failure.

In the Forensic Injury Assessment Report No. 203/TTPY dated May 6^th, 2014, by the Forensic Center of Hà Nội Department of Health concluded that:

The injury to Mr. Cao Văn C at the time of assessment included: soft tissue scar, fractured left X rib without pleural effusion or pneumothorax; likely caused by a sharp object; health impairment rate is 5%.

In the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 47/2015/HSST dated February 5^th, 2015, the People’s Court of Hà Nội City applied points a and n Clause 1 Article 93; Point p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46 of the 1999 Criminal Code, sentencing Nguyễn Đình Đ to death for the crime of “Murder”.

On February 10^th, 2015, Nguyễn Đình Đ appealed for a reduction of the sentence.

In the Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6^th, 2016, the High People’s Court in Hà Nội rejected Nguyễn Đình Đ’s appeal, applying points a and n Clause 1 Article 93; Points b and p Clause 1, Clause 2 Article 46 of the 1999 Criminal Code, and sentenced Nguyễn Đình Đ to death for the crime of “Murder”.

In the Cassation Appeal Decision No. 16/QĐ-VKSTC dated November 29^th, 2019, the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy decided to appeal the First-instance Criminal Judgment No. 47/2015/HSST dated February 5^th, 2015, of the People’s Court of Hà Nội City and the Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6^th, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hà Nội against Nguyễn Đình Đ.

The appeal requested the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court to conduct a cassation trial, vacate part of the aforementioned First-instance Criminal Judgment and the Appellate Criminal Judgment regarding the charges and penalties against Nguyễn Đình Đ for further investigation.

At the cassation trial, the representative of the Supreme People’s Procuracy proposed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court accept the appeal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme People’s Procuracy.

COURT’S OPINION:

[1] Regarding Nguyễn Đình Đ’s actions towards Mr. Cao Văn C:

[2] Despite the absence of prior conflict between Nguyễn Đình Đ and Mr. Cao Văn C, Mr. C’s provocative statement, “I like fighting, so I am adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?”, prompted Đ to brandish a knife typically used for bamboo and rattan crafts. This knife has an 11cm wooden handle, a 13.5cm steel blade with a slightly curved pointed tip, and a width of 2.5cm at its widest part.

Đ aimed the knife at Mr. C’s face, stating, “You want to fight?”, then stabbed Mr. C once in the left rib area, a vital part of the human body, causing Mr. C to flee. Thus, solely due to Mr. C’s provocative words, Đ employed a sharp knife, a dangerous weapon, to inflict a wound on Mr. C’s abdomen.

According to forensic analysis, Mr. C sustained a 5% health impairment rate, assessed nearly five months post-incident, which does not accurately reflect the injury’s severity at the time of the offense nor the gravity of the crime. Mr. C’s survival exceeded Đ’s subjective intent. Consequently, Đ’s actions constituted the offense of “Murder” with the aggravating circumstance of “thuggish nature.”

[3] Nguyễn Đình Đ’s actions towards Mr. Dương Văn T1:

[4] Mr. Dương Văn T1 was accompanying Mr. Cao Văn C at the time. There was no prior conflict between Mr. T1 and Nguyễn Đình Đ, nor did Mr. T1 provoke Đ in any manner during the incident. However, following the stabbing of Mr. Cao Văn C and his subsequent flight, Đ seized Mr. T1 by the collar and stabbed him.

Mr. T1 attempted to escape, but Đ pursued and inflicted multiple stab wounds, causing Mr. T1 to collapse face-down. Đ continued to stab Mr. T1 three more times in the back until he lost consciousness. As a result, Mr. T1 succumbed to acute blood loss and respiratory failure. Đ’s lethal assault on Mr. T1 further underscores the “thuggish nature” of his actions, constituting an aggravating circumstance.

[5] As analyzed above, despite the absence of prior conflicts, Đ employed a knife to target vital areas of two victims simultaneously, resulting in one fatality and another injury. The first-instance court and the appellate court’s conviction of Nguyễn Đình Đ for “Murder” under Points a (murder of multiple persons) and n (with thuggish nature) Clause 1, Article 93 of the 1999 Criminal Code was well-founded.

[6] Although Nguyễn Đình Đ made sincere confessions during the trial proceedings and actively compensated the victim’s family, his criminal actions were notably severe, characterized by thuggish, aggressive, and reckless behavior, demonstrating a profound disregard for human life. Therefore, the first-instance court and the appellate court’s imposition of the death penalty on Nguyễn Đình Đ for “Murder” was legally justified.

In light of the foregoing,

IT IS DECIDED:

Pursuant to Clause 4 Article 382, Clause 1 Article 388, Article 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code:

1. The appeal of the Chief Procurator of the Supreme People’s Procuracy is dismissed.
2. The Appellate Criminal Judgment No. 01/2016/HSPT dated January 6^th, 2016, of the High People’s Court in Hà Nội regarding the charges and penalties against Nguyễn Đình Đ is upheld.

CONTENT OF THE CASE LAW:

“[2] Despite the absence of prior conflict between Nguyễn Đình Đ and Mr. Cao Văn C, Mr. C’s provocative statement, “I like fighting, so I am adding fuel to the fire. Who are you to come here acting tough?”, prompted Đ to brandish a knife typically used for bamboo and rattan crafts. This knife has an 11cm wooden handle, a 13.5cm steel blade with a slightly curved pointed tip, and a width of 2.5cm at its widest part. Đ aimed the knife at Mr. C’s face, stating, “You want to fight?”, then stabbed Mr. C once in the left rib area, a vital part of the human body, causing Mr. C to flee.

Thus, solely due to Mr. C’s provocative words, Đ employed a sharp knife, a dangerous weapon, to inflict a wound on Mr. C’s abdomen. According to forensic analysis, Mr. C sustained a 5% health impairment rate, assessed nearly five months post-incident, which does not accurately reflect the injury’s severity at the time of the offense nor the gravity of the crime. Mr. C’s survival exceeded Đ’s subjective intent. Consequently, Đ’s actions constituted the offense of “Murder” with the aggravating circumstance of “thuggish nature”.”

If you need more consulting, please Contact Us at TNHH NT International Law Firm (ntpartnerlawfirm.com)

You can also download the .docx version here.