Lawyer under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Causing grievous harm to health

Causing grievous bodily harm provides for criminal liability from the very beginning in the form of a maximum penalty of 8 years of imprisonment, which refers to Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the number of serious crimes.

Decisive, but not the final role in qualifying a criminal act under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation plays a role in forensic medical examination to determine the severity of harm to health; this can only be determined by a specialist according to certain criteria. Such an examination is usually carried out even before the initiation of a criminal case at the verification stage in accordance with Art. 144-145 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Another, no less important for qualification, feature that makes it possible to qualify a crime under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is intent. This crime is characterized by direct intent; the infliction of grievous bodily harm must occur as a result of intentional actions.

Lawyer under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Causing grievous harm to health

To ensure reliable protection for yourself when accused of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm, you should use the help of a lawyer under Art.
111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in Krasnogorsk. Before consulting with a lawyer, you should not begin to implement any line of defense; subsequently, thoughtlessly given testimony and actions can only do harm. Therefore, at the first opportunity, seek the help of a qualified defense lawyer, a lawyer under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in Krasnogorsk will help you or your relative choose the right position in the case and implement it during the proceedings. CRIMINAL LAWYER call now: ☎ 8 (495) 532-75-40

Commentary on Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The most dangerous type of attack on human health is serious harm to health, which has a clear tendency to increase. When describing the elements of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm in the commentary. The article uses a combined method: by listing its constituent elements - types of grave harm, as well as by indicating the closest genus and species differences.

2. Grave harm includes <1>: ——————————— <1> The comments in articles on crimes against human health are based on the provisions of the Rules of Forensic Medical Examination of the severity of harm to health, approved. Order of the Ministry of Health of Russia dated December 10, 1996 N 407 (Medical newspaper. 1997. N 23, N 34). Due to the fact that the Department of Registration and Control over Departmental Normative Acts of the Ministry of Justice of Russia refused state registration of these Rules due to their contradiction with current legislation (see letter of the Ministry of Justice of Russia dated August 15, 2001 N 07/8280-YUD), the Minister of Health of the Russian Federation with his Order No. 361 of September 14, 2001 canceled Order of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 407 of December 10, 1996, which approved these Rules (see also Order of the Russian Ministry of Health No. 119 of March 21, 2003). A legal vacuum has formed. Nevertheless, judicial practice is still guided by the provisions of these Rules. Note scientific ed.

a) life-threatening harm. This is recognized as harm to health that causes a life-threatening condition that can result in death; They can be either physical injuries, diseases or pathological conditions. Life-threatening injuries include, for example, penetrating wounds of the skull and spine, open fractures of long tubular bones, damage to large blood vessels, second-degree burns exceeding 30% of the body surface, etc. This kind of damage, classified as the first group, by its nature poses a threat to the life of the victim. The second group includes injuries that cause the development of a life-threatening condition (coma, massive blood loss, severe shock, etc.);

b) injuries that are not life-threatening and classified as serious in terms of consequences. These include loss of vision, speech, hearing, loss of an organ or loss of an organ’s functions; abortion; mental disorder, drug addiction or substance abuse; permanent facial disfigurement.

2.1. Grave harm also includes infliction of harm that caused a significant permanent loss of general ability to work by at least 1/3 or, knowingly for the perpetrator, a complete loss of the victim’s professional ability to work.

3. Loss of vision is understood as complete permanent blindness in both eyes or a condition where there is a decrease in vision to a visual acuity index of 0.04 or lower (counting fingers at a distance of 2 m and before light perception).

Hearing loss refers to complete deafness or such an irreversible condition when the victim cannot hear spoken speech at a distance of 3 - 5 cm from the auricle.

Loss of vision in one eye and loss of hearing in one ear represent the loss of an organ’s functions and, on this basis, are classified as serious harm to health. The loss of one eyeball is considered the loss of an organ, and the loss of a blind eye is classified based on the duration of the health disorder. When determining the severity of harm, the possibility of improving vision or hearing with the help of medical and technical means (glasses, hearing aids, etc.) is not taken into account.

4. Loss of speech refers to the loss of the ability to express one’s thoughts in articulate sounds that are understandable to others, or the loss of voice.

5. The loss of an organ or loss of its functions means: a) loss of an arm, leg, i.e. their separation from the body or loss of functions (for example, as a result of paralysis). The loss of an arm or leg is equivalent to the loss of the most functionally important part of a limb (hand, foot): such a loss is regarded as grave harm on another basis due to the fact that it entails a permanent loss of working capacity of more than 1/3; b) damage to the genital organs, accompanied by loss of productive capacity. It is understood as the loss of the ability to copulate, fertilize, bear and bear children; c) loss of one testicle, which is the loss of an organ.

6. Termination of pregnancy, regardless of its duration, is recognized as serious harm to health if it is caused by the behavior of the perpetrator, and not by the individual characteristics of the victim’s body or her diseases. It is important to establish that the perpetrator, when causing the damage, was aware that the victim was pregnant.

7. Mental disorder, drug addiction or substance abuse are new types of serious harm to health, unknown to the previous Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. As a result of violence or threats from the perpetrator, the victim develops a mental illness or persistent dependence on narcotic, psychotropic or toxic substances. The assessment of the severity of harm to health in these cases is carried out by a forensic medical expert with the participation of a psychiatrist, narcologist, toxicologist after conducting a forensic psychiatric, forensic drug addiction or forensic toxicological examination, respectively.

8. Indelible facial disfigurement is a type of grave harm distinguished according to aesthetic criteria. It gives the victim a repulsive, ugly appearance. To classify damage as grave harm on the basis of the criteria in question, it is necessary to establish two circumstances: the indelibility of the damage and the disfigurement of the face by it.

8.1. The question of whether the damage is erasable is decided by an expert. It should be understood as the possibility of disappearance of the visible consequences of damage or a significant decrease in their severity (i.e., the visibility of scars, deformations, impaired facial expressions, etc.) over time or under the influence of non-surgical means. If cosmetic surgery is required to correct these effects, the damage is considered permanent. Regardless of the conclusion on the issue of indelibility of injuries to the face, the expert establishes their severity based on other indicators of the severity of harm to health.

8.2. The question of disfigurement is a legal, evaluative one. It is decided by the court (investigative bodies) on the basis of generally accepted aesthetic ideas, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

9. The commented article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation also includes the complete loss of professional ability for victims of an attack on their health as a type of serious harm to health. Professional work capacity is a person’s ability to perform a certain volume and quality of work in a specific profession (pianist, carpenter, surgeon, etc.).

9.1. Complete loss is established in cases where the victim, due to severe impairment of body functions, has absolute medical contraindications for performing any type of professional activity, even in specially created conditions. To impute this type of harm, it is necessary to establish knowledge, i.e. the perpetrator, when causing harm to the health of the victim, knew that this harm could lead to a complete loss of professional ability to work (for example, damage to a pianist’s hand).

10. Harm to health is considered serious if it causes a significant permanent loss of general ability to work by at least 1/3. When determining the amount of permanent loss, the expert is guided by a table of percentages of disability as a result of various injuries. According to this table, for example, removal of a lung means 60% loss of ability to work.

The loss of general ability to work must not only be significant, but also persistent and irreversible. Loss of ability to work should be considered permanent, either with a definite outcome or with a duration of health disorder of more than 120 days.

11. The subjective side of the crime (Part 1 of the commentary article) is characterized by direct and indirect intent. At the same time, intentional infliction of harm, assessed as grave based on the danger to life, should be distinguished from attempted murder precisely on the subjective side. An attempt is made only with direct intent: the perpetrator, realizing the social danger of the shot he made, stabbing him, giving poison, etc., foresees the possibility or inevitability of the death of the victim and wishes to cause this harm. In contrast, this type of grievous harm presupposes indirect intent regarding the fact of death, and due to the fact that it did not occur, the act is qualified under Part 1 of the comment. articles. If death from the inflicted damage, dangerous to the life of the victim, actually occurs, then if there is indirect intent, the act is regarded as murder. If a desire for death is established at the time of causing life-threatening harm, the act is qualified either as murder (if death has occurred) or as attempted murder (if actual deprivation of life has not occurred). Finally, if there is a careless attitude towards the death of the victim with the intentional infliction of harm dangerous to life, there is a crime with two forms of guilt (Article 27 of the Criminal Code).

12. The subject of a criminal offense is a sane individual who has reached 14 years of age.

13. Responsibility for intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm is differentiated by the qualifying circumstances listed in parts 2 - 4 of the commentary. articles. In Part 2, they are recognized as having committed the act specified in Part 1: in relation to a person or his relatives in connection with the performance of official activities by this person or the performance of a public duty; with particular cruelty, humiliation or torture for the victim, as well as in relation to a person who is known to the perpetrator to be in a helpless state; in a generally dangerous manner; for hire; for hooligan reasons; motivated by national, racial, religious hatred or enmity; for the purpose of using the victim’s organs or tissues.

14. The acts provided for in Part 1 or 2 are considered to be committed under specially qualifying circumstances (Part 3) if they were committed: by a group of persons, a group of persons by prior conspiracy or an organized group; against two or more persons.

15. The content of qualifying and specially qualifying features according to the main parameters is similar to those provided for in Part 2 of Art. 105 in relation to murder (see commentary to Art. 105).

15.1. Torment as a method of causing harm to health is understood as actions that cause suffering (illness) through prolonged deprivation of food, drink or heat, or placing (or leaving) the victim in conditions harmful to health, or other similar actions.

15.2. Cases of mockery and other gross violations of human dignity are also considered as bullying.

16. The greatest public danger and at the same time difficulty in terms of law enforcement is the type of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm provided for in Part 4 - a type that negligently resulted in the death of the victim. Outwardly, this crime resembles murder, for example, a stab in a vital part of the body, causing death. In some cases, such an act can be regarded as murder, in others - according to the rules of Part 4 of the comment. articles.

16.1. The distinction here must be made primarily on the subjective side of the act. Part 4 describes two results of this relationship (serious harm to health and death), which correspond to two standards of guilt. If the perpetrator has the intent (direct or indirect) to cause serious harm to the health of the victim, i.e. he foresees at least the possibility of its occurrence and desires or consciously allows such consequences (or is indifferent to them), then the CR occurs under Part 4 of Art. 111. If the perpetrator did not have the intent to cause grievous harm to health, and even more so, if there was no intent to cause harm to health in general, the imputation of Part 4 of Art. 111 is out of the question. These are the situations of the so-called indirect cause of death (blow or push - fall - hitting your head on a hard surface - death).

16.2. Regarding the second result - death - the attitude of the perpetrator is different: he commits negligence. He either foresees the possibility of death from intentionally causing serious harm, but without sufficient grounds he arrogantly hopes to prevent death (frivolity), or does not foresee such a possibility, although with the necessary care and foresight he should and could have foreseen this (negligence). This is, for example, the situation when a knife is stabbed in the thigh, damaging a large blood artery, and death occurs from acute blood loss.

17. Regarding the criteria for distinguishing between murder and intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim through negligence, the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in paragraph. 2, paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 1 of January 27, 1999, emphasized that when deciding the issue of the content of the perpetrator’s intent, it is necessary to proceed from the totality of all the circumstances of the crime. In particular, it is necessary to take into account the method and weapon of the crime, the number, nature and location of damage (for example, injuries to the vital organs of the victim), as well as the previous crime and subsequent behavior of the perpetrator and the victim, their relationship.

18. The acts described in parts 1 and 2 belong to the category of grave crimes, and in parts 3 and 4 - especially grave ones.

Defense in cases of causing grievous bodily harm under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The tactics of defense in cases of causing grievous bodily harm in Krasnogorsk will depend on the circumstances of your case. The most common method of defense may be to reclassify the act as a less serious crime. So, as mentioned above, Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for the mandatory presence of direct intent to cause harm to health. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the presence of direct intent if the crime is given such a qualification. But what if the harm was not caused intentionally, but as a result of careless, unintentional actions. If the defense manages to prove this and convince the investigation of this, then the crime is reclassified to the much less serious Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: Causing grievous bodily harm through negligence. Also the task of a lawyer under Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as part of the defense in cases of causing grievous bodily harm in Krasnogorsk, includes a search for the presence of mitigating circumstances of the commission of a crime and their use in the course of the defense.

If you or your relative are accused of Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Causing grievous bodily harm), immediately contact a lawyer and ensure yourself a reliable defense. Call the phone number listed on the website, we guarantee you qualified assistance!

Not intentional grievous bodily harm, but exceeding the necessary defense

“Acting intentionally, L., with the aim of causing grievous harm to the health of H., dangerous to human life, realizing the social danger of his actions, foreseeing the inevitability of socially dangerous consequences in the form of causing grievous harm to the health of H. and desiring their occurrence, but together with however, not wanting to cause the death of X., although with due care and forethought he should have and could have foreseen the onset of X’s death, he deliberately struck one blow to the area of ​​X’s right thigh with a knife found at the scene of the incident.”

.

The first thing that comes to mind after reading the above quote is the words of Viktor Chernomyrdin: “I can speak any language with everyone, but I try not to use this tool.”

1. Unfortunately, not everyone follows this rule...

But I read this only later, in the indictment, and on the night of the event, on a call from a person I didn’t know, I got ready and drove into a snowstorm to a village 30 km from Novosibirsk. The caller said that his brother had committed murder and he urgently needed a lawyer. As I was approaching the scene, I received another call and was forced to drive in the opposite direction as the suspect was taken from the crime scene to the police station.

As follows from the plot of the resolution to bring L. as an accused under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while drinking alcohol, a quarrel occurred between him and Kh., during which L., on the basis of a sudden personal hostility, arose a criminal intent aimed at deliberately inflicting grievous harm to his drinking companion, which negligently resulted in the death of the victim.

The difficulty of the defense in this category of cases is that in the absence of witnesses who could express their attitude to what happened, the only means available for reconstructing events is the flash memory of the defendant, who was in a state of heavy alcoholic intoxication. That is, the defense attorney, in fact, has nothing, while the investigator has only a corpse, a blood-stained room, a knife in the corpse’s leg, and a suspect who literally says: “Yes, I killed him.” As modern practice shows, any objections of a sobered defendant in such a reality will be reflected in the verdict with the court’s remarks: “Trying to avoid criminal liability for the crime committed...”.

From the defendant’s testimony it followed that in the process of drinking alcohol together with X., he called him a rooster. Having no formal criminal record, but having previously visited “places with pronounced coolness” three times, L. tried to explain to his interlocutor that the word “rooster” there, although it is heard more often than on poultry farms, has a completely different meaning, and asked for this word according to do not use it in relation to him anymore. Since this philosophy turned out to be alien to X., he objected in the most accessible, in his opinion, way - by hitting his interlocutor on the head with his fist at least twice. L. pushed the offender away. Then Kh. grabbed a kitchen knife from the table and rushed at L. My client knocked the knife out of Kh.’s hand, but he again attacked him with his fists. Tired of this tiresome “conversation,” L. grabbed a knife from the table that had fallen from X.’s hand and plunged it into his leg up to the hilt. Kh. fell to the floor and died a few minutes later from hemorrhagic shock - the knife blade cut the femoral artery. Immediately after this, L. called his wife and asked to call the police and an ambulance.

After listening to this story from my client, I immediately submitted a request to the investigator to order a forensic medical examination, raising the question of the nature and time of the injuries on L’s head. In addition, understanding that the defense’s position is based solely on the testimony of the suspect, I filed a request to interrogate the doctor doctor L. at the district clinic - they needed an answer to the question about whether the defendant had diseases associated with impaired motor functions. Having found out from the principal which of his fellow villagers could confirm the version that L.’s leg functions were impaired while intoxicated, I submitted a request to question witnesses as part of the preliminary investigation.

During the interrogation, L. testified that he suffered from a neurological disease, due to which his movements were limited; this did not allow him to jump out of his chair and avoid the blows that X inflicted on him. It turned out that in the absence of witnesses, for the same reason, L. could not escape from the crime scene! I thought for a long time whether to use such an argument. On the one hand, this fact confirms the helpless state of the defendant, who could neither escape nor effectively defend himself from the attacker. On the other hand, formally, in this way I stated that under other circumstances L. would certainly have run away, trying to lead the investigation to a dead end and “cover his tracks.” Of course, I would not have meant that, but the prosecution could very likely interpret my arguments that way. And yet I took a risk...

At the court hearing, I explained that my client really perceived the threat to life and health posed by X., since he had already struck him several blows to the head, causing fear and pain. To avoid life-threatening consequences, at the time of the next attack, the defendant grabbed a knife that had fallen from X. from the table and, stopping his criminal intentions, delivered a single blow to the safest place, in his opinion, in the leg just above the knee. He had the opportunity to stab H. in the chest, stomach, groin and neck, since he was standing directly above him, but did not want to kill him or cause grievous bodily harm, but simply wanted to stop the attacker’s illegal actions.

Immediately after the interrogation of the defendant, a petition was filed to reclassify the act incriminated to him from Part 4 of Art. 111 on part 1 of Art. 114 CC. Despite the apparent possibility of filing a motion to terminate the criminal case due to L. being in a state of necessary defense, I considered this unacceptable due to the presence of circumstances, the refutation of which in the future could become disastrous for the chosen position. There was other evidence indicating that L. was not in a state of necessary defense. Indirect, “slippery”, they had not yet appeared in the materials of the criminal case, but I was sure that this was a matter of time. It’s like a pen slowly rolling towards the edge of a table – will it fall or not? As it turned out later, I was right in this too - the indicated circumstances appeared in the materials of the criminal case as an image on photographic paper, but it was too late, since the prosecution could not refute the position chosen by the defense.

When carrying out defense in this category of cases, the key is Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 27, 2012 No. 19 “On the application by courts of legislation on necessary defense and causing harm when detaining a person who has committed a crime,” which clearly sets out the procedure for bringing to criminal liability and reclassification of the crime from Part 4 of Art. 111 on part 1 of Art. 114 CC. Despite the fact that the main part of the resolution is devoted to the interpretation of Art. 37 of the Criminal Code, it also explains the grounds for requalification. This resolution provided me with invaluable assistance both in challenging the charges at the stage of the judicial investigation and in preparing my defense speech.

During the preliminary investigation, I submitted requests for reclassification of the act twice more, all of which were denied by the investigator. However, each of the petitions contained new grounds for his statement, and as a result, these petitions, as well as the investigator’s unclear answers to them, became part of the criminal case, undermining the “framework” of the accusation.

In order to undermine the position of the state prosecutor who supported the charge against L. under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code in full, the facts directly examined in the court session were needed.

Thus, witness S. testified in court that he is the attending physician of L., who suffers from a disease in which the motor functions of the lower extremities are impaired. Alcohol aggravates the symptoms of the disease, negatively affecting motor functions. The doctor confirmed that L. could not walk while intoxicated and asked his relatives to take him home. His testimony confirmed the testimony of my client in that at the time of X.’s attack he could not run away and effectively defend himself, including from punches.

At my request, a re-examination of X’s corpse was ordered. This time, the specialist was asked questions about the location of X. and L. relative to each other at the time of the incident. In conclusion, the expert came to the conclusion that the distance between the accused and the victim corresponded to that pointed out by L. At the same time, he did not rule out that L. struck with a knife at the moment when he was sitting in front of Kh. standing in front of him - that is, he was occupying vulnerable position.

An investigative experiment conducted at the court hearing with the participation of an extra and a reconstructed situation with the use of a knife refuted the prosecution’s version that the defendant was preparing to commit a crime, and confirmed the defense’s version of the place where the knife fell after the defendant knocked it out of the victim’s hand, and not “looked for”, as the investigation claimed, to commit a crime.

It also followed from the forensic expert’s report that L. had a bruise in the right cheek-zygomatic region, which formed during the period corresponding to the time of the incident. This confirmed the defense version that the victim hit the accused on the head. My client’s testimony was supported by an extract from a medical institution dated February 10, 2021, which indicated the diagnosis: “Dorsopathy of the lumbar spine.” Additionally, the certificate I requested from the outpatient clinic dated February 25, 2021, containing information about L.’s specific disease, became new evidence. Witnesses for the defense, questioned at the preliminary investigation stage, confirmed at the trial that the victim was aggressive and an unpredictable bully.

Sister Kh., recognized as a victim, at the court hearing asked for the most severe punishment for the defendant. The prosecutor, in turn, asked the court to recognize L.'s state of alcoholic intoxication at the time of the crime as an aggravating circumstance and impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 10 years.

During the meeting, I repeatedly and consistently convinced the court that the criminal prosecution body had opened a criminal case under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code and L. was brought as an accused solely on the basis that the outcome of the event was, as determined by a forensic examination, serious harm to the victim’s health, resulting in death. I am sure that the court was also greatly influenced by my use as an argument of the fact that the involvement of L. as an accused for committing a crime under Part 4 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code was carried out without taking into account the requirements of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of September 27, 2012 No. 19 and generally accepted judicial practice. For almost six months, I convinced the court that the evidence collected in the case allows us to declare that the position of the criminal prosecution body was erroneous, and the factual circumstances of the case and the totality of evidence indicate the need to reclassify the act under Part 1 of Art. 114 CC.

As a result, the court did not find in the actions of the defendant the guilt indicated in the indictment, indicating that the position of the prosecution was not supported by the case materials and evidence examined at the hearing, as well as the fact that the state of intoxication influenced or could influence the commission of the crime. By the verdict of the Novosibirsk District Court of Novosibirsk dated March 30, 2021, L. was found guilty under Part 1 of Art. 114 of the Criminal Code and sentenced to 11 months of correctional labor. At the same time, the court counted the convict’s stay in the pre-trial detention center from the moment of detention into the sentence, and therefore decided that the sentence had been served and released L. in the courtroom.

In conclusion, I note that the chances of a favorable outcome increase when the defense is reduced not to refuting the prosecution’s arguments, but to forcing the prosecution to refute the defense’s arguments. This, as practice has shown, is the weakest link in the chain of actions of the investigator and prosecutor.

1 Magazine "Itogi". 1996. No. 26.

Why is it necessary to contact a lawyer?

Unlike the public defender, who has neither interest nor incentive, I, for my part, guarantee full legal support. This means that I:

• I apply to the commission, if necessary - appeal, cassation;
• I provide qualified consultations;
• I interact with government agencies;
• I accompany you during the trial and pre-trial process;
• developing a defense strategy - a promising and adequate action plan;
• collecting evidence;
• in case of newly discovered circumstances, I accompany during the review of the case;
• I am forming a comprehensive protection system.

The outcome of a case brought under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation can be sadly predictable if you do not receive the support of a lawyer. It is best to contact me for help at the stage of forming a case. The sooner you do this, the better result I can guarantee you.

Similar compositions and their differences

Article 111 deals exclusively with the intentional infliction of grievous harm. In practice, it is important to qualify the act properly.

• If we are talking about intentional infliction of harm of moderate severity (Article 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), then the difference lies precisely in the severity of the damage. In this case, everything depends on the medical report.
• Another related article, 113 , establishes liability for grave or moderate harm caused in a state of passion, that is, a short-term clouding of consciousness caused by emotional stress or excitement. The perpetrator does not consciously cause damage, but only under the influence of his condition. The presence of such a condition is established by examination.

Attention! The affect can only be short-term insanity, which usually lasts a few seconds or minutes. Long-term mental impairment is a sign of incapacity or other health problem.

• Art. 114 also defines a sanction when the perpetrators inflict certain damage, but in a situation of defense against the unlawful actions of another person to whom the damage was subsequently caused. The punishment will be more lenient, since the situation arises not because of the initial actions of the accused, but as a result of the behavior (actions) of the victim, who will be accused under another article. The maximum sanction is imprisonment for up to a year (Part 1, Article 114)

Important: This article is one of the most controversial in domestic practice, since it can be quite difficult to determine which actions exceed the permissible limits, according to the law, and which did not exceed these limits.

• Reckless infliction of grievous harm under Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation differs from intentional grievous bodily harm precisely by intent. According to the provisions prescribed in Art. 118, damage to the victim is caused accidentally, while it is provided that the perpetrator has no desire for such a result. The form of guilt here is negligence in the form of criminal negligence or frivolity. Accordingly, in Article 118 the sanction will be significantly less. Without qualifying criteria, the maximum penalty is no more than 2 years in prison.

Submit your application

Thank you!
Your application is accepted. We will contact you shortly.

Error sending application. Try sending again.

Certificates, petitions, statements of claim

expand

Submit your application

Thank you!
Your application is accepted. We will contact you shortly.

Error sending application. Try sending again.

Prices for services

Oral legal advice from a criminal lawyer from 1000 rub.
Analysis of documents from criminal proceedings
from 1000 rub.
Written legal advice from a criminal lawyer with the preparation of an advisory report
from 2000 rub.
Drawing up a lawyer’s request for information and documents
from 2000 rub.
Participation in one investigative action (interrogation, confrontation, etc.)
from 2000 rub.
Participation of a criminal lawyer in one court hearing
from 3000 rub.
Representation of a criminal lawyer in other authorities in the interests of the client
from 2000 rub.
Full management of a criminal case at the stage of inquiry and preliminary investigation
from 10,000 rub.
Full criminal case management in court
from 10,000 rub.
Urgent departure of a criminal lawyer when a client is detained, to a pre-trial detention center, the prosecutor's office, or the Investigative Committee.
from 12,000 rub.
Criminal proceedings
from 30,000 rub.
Recovery of moral damages under UD
from 30,000 rub.
Compensation of expenses by court decision
from 30,000 rub.
Participation of a defense attorney and detective in the preliminary investigation
from 20,000 rub.
Representation of a lawyer in court with charges under articles of medium and grave bodily harm
50 - 90 thousand rubles.
Visit of a lawyer to the investigator, familiarization with the criminal case
from 5000 rub.
Participation of a criminal lawyer in the court of first instance
30,000 - 80,000 rub.
Protection at the stage of investigation, inquiry (especially serious crimes)
90 - 150 thousand rubles.
A lawyer’s visit to a client in custody, development of a line of defense
from 15,000 rub.

Prices for the preparation of procedural documents

rub.
Preparation of a statement of claim
from 2000 rubles.
Preparation of an objection to a statement of claim
from 2000 rubles.
Preparation of applications
from 2000 rubles.
Appeal
from 2000 rubles.
Cassation appeal
from 2000 rubles.
Supervisory complaint
from 2000 rub.
Complaint to the prosecutor's office about illegal actions
from 2000 rubles.

Prices for primary legal assistance in criminal cases

rub.
Legal assistance and defense for a detainee, suspect or accused in the city of Ufa
from 10,000 rubles.
Legal assistance and defense for a detainee, suspect or accused on the territory of the Republic of Bashkortostan
from 15,000 rubles.
Assistance for the victim in case of refusal to initiate a criminal case
from 12,000 rubles.

Participation of a criminal lawyer in the preliminary investigation of a criminal case for a suspect in a crime

rub.
— light weight
from 10,000 rubles.
- medium weight
from 15,000 rubles.
- serious crimes
from 20,000 rubles.
- for especially serious crimes
from 25,000 rubles.

Punishment and qualifying signs

The legislator means by qualifying characteristics those that increase liability and, accordingly, the act as a whole in the presence of such characteristics is aggravated. Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Article 111 contain an indication of precisely such points.

Intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm without aggravating conditions may result in imprisonment for up to eight years under Part 1 of Art. 111.

Part 2 Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

To impose punishment under this part, the intentional infliction of grievous harm must be committed:

• in relation to a person, his relatives for reasons related to his service or performance of public duty;
• against a minor (child under 14 years of age), helpless, or with particular cruelty to the victim;
• by a method that poses a particular danger (for example, an explosion);
• for hire;
• for reasons related to hooliganism;
• because of hatred, for example, based on political or ideological views;
• for subsequent use of the citizen’s organs;
• using weapons.

In the cases presented, the sanction reaches 10 years in prison.

Part 3 Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

It spells out even more dangerous qualifying features for society:

• the action was performed by a group;
• more than one person became a victim.

In such situations, the punishment will be up to twelve years.

Part 4 art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

If the victim dies from the injuries inflicted, the punishment can be up to 15 years in prison.

Additional punishment

For qualified offenses (parts 2-4 of Article 111), at the discretion of the court, an additional sentence of up to 2 years of restriction of freedom may be imposed.

Severity and duration

The severity of the act, based on the provisions of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, depends on the presence of the qualifying characteristics specified in paragraphs 2-4 of this article. In their absence, the general qualification under Part 1 is applied, the punishment will be the least possible.

Acts in accordance with parts 1-2 of the norm of the Criminal Code in question belong to the category of serious crimes, parts 3-4 - to especially serious ones. Accordingly, the statute of limitations during which the perpetrator may be held liable under this article is 10 years for parts 1 and 2, and 15 years for parts 3 and 4. This period begins to run from the day the crime was committed.

The task of a lawyer under Article 111

A criminal lawyer who has taken on a case brought under Article 111 of the Criminal Code, Part 2, Part 3-4 must help his client identify violations in examinations and investigative errors in order to quash the charge. If there is no possibility of acquittal, the lawyer must do everything to soften the court’s decision or achieve the application of other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to the client.

Causing harm to health - intentional or unintentional - is always serious. Since your most valuable asset—several years of your life—is at stake, it is worth seeking out a qualified and experienced attorney with the knowledge and skills to handle such proceedings.

Only an informed specialist can achieve a positive result and study the issue from all sides. To do this, he must receive answers to the following questions:

• What accompanied the actions of the accused, were they intentional?
• Does the defendant admit to what he did, and how does he feel about his action?
• Does the defendant realize the depth of his act?
• How severe were the injuries suffered by the victim?