Murder by negligence: Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment period. What is the sentence for murder by negligence, for exceeding self-defense, manslaughter?

Concept

Causing death by negligence is an action or inaction that objectively resulted in the death of another person, committed without intent. The presence of gross negligence or frivolity leads to the commission of such a crime. The law provides that the person guilty of committing the crime of causing death by negligence foresaw or should have foreseen that his act could lead to the death of another person, but at the same time unreasonably believed that this would not happen.

What help can you get from a lawyer?

Since cases of death by negligence are usually simple, there will most likely be few investigative actions. But it is better to come to them with a lawyer.

Interrogation is a psychologically difficult action, especially if you are a suspect or accused. The help of a criminal lawyer is needed so that the investigator does not receive unnecessary information, as well as for moral support.
The lawyer will begin searching for grounds to dismiss the case. If it can be proven that there was no crime, the case is closed and all charges are dropped.
Your defense attorney will take part in the preliminary hearings and will ensure that evidence against you, which the investigator collected in violation of the Criminal Procedure Code, is excluded from the case.

It is important to know: in cases of death caused by negligence, the victim often demands payment of enormous moral damages. The bill runs into millions of rubles. To reduce this amount, you need an experienced lawyer.

Signs of murder by negligence

In order for a murder case to proceed under Article 109, it is necessary to prove the unintentionality of the crime. The distinctive features of such an act can be found below:

The criminal does not have a motive for killing in relation to his victim, that is, the murder occurred by accident, for example, during a hunt, when the shot was unintentionally fired towards a person and not an animal. If a motive is nevertheless discovered, then the court will already work under Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - murder.
At the time the crime was committed, the defendant did not expect that his actions would lead to murder. However, it is important to understand that if the death occurred after the offender violated some rights, for example, traffic or fire safety, then the murder will not be considered manslaughter.

Forensic studies have shown that murder by negligence, as a rule, is carried out in everyday life when unsorted gas or electrical equipment is installed in apartments.

Corpus delicti

Murder by negligence is considered under Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The crime is as follows:

the object is the article under which the crime occurs, that is, 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation;
the subject is the accused;
the objective side is the descriptions of events, which are genuine and unbiased;
the subjective side is how the accused relates to the crime committed.

It is important to note that only persons over 16 years of age can apply under this article.

Features of the crime

The features of the crime include the following:

Most often, a crime occurs due to negligence or frivolity on the part of the accused. These phenomena in themselves are not intentional.
As a rule, litigation lasts a very long time. The main task of the court is to confirm or deny the presence of motivation in the murder. To do this, multiple pieces of evidence are collected, as well as details and features of what happened.
According to statistics, the largest part of crimes under Article 109 occurs during domestic quarrels and conflicts.
Let us note that Article 109 is often confused with Article 111. The latter is applied in situations where the accused committed unintentional actions, causing harm to the health of the victim, and these actions subsequently caused death.

The outcome of the case in such proceedings depends on how much evidence can be collected and presented. On the part of the defendant, it is very important to have witnesses and any possible evidence confirming the lack of motivation in the murder.

Distinctive features of murder by negligence from other crimes

At the beginning of the article, we gave an example of how a well-placed blow from a professional athlete served as an indirect cause of a person’s death.
In this situation, the accused was convicted under Article No. 109, part one. However, the court's verdict caused quite controversial opinions in the legal community. Based on the fact of the crime, no malicious intent can be traced and the cause of death was a fall. However, there is a cause-and-effect relationship here: if there had not been a blow, the fatal fall would not have occurred. Some human rights activists argued that an athlete of this level, involved in martial arts, was clearly aware of the consequences of the blow, so this action can be considered as premeditated murder. Therefore, to determine the corpus delicti, the following signs are taken into account:

lack of intent - the accused does not have a goal to kill;
the suspect does not initially believe that his actions could cause death;
established cause-and-effect relationships to rule out motive.

In addition, the crime is considered completed from the moment of death of the victim. The age limit is also taken into account: 16 years. According to the letter of the law, citizens under the specified age cannot fully understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore are not subject to criminal prosecution for this type of crime.

Difference from premeditated murder

Causing death by negligence is distinguished from intentional murder by the absence of intent to cause death. And guilt stems from causing death and the perpetrator’s understanding of the danger of his behavior for the lives of other people.

The difference between causing death by negligence and murder with indirect intent is that the perpetrator in the first case only foresees the possibility of death, and in the second case he foresees the immediate probability of the occurrence of this event. Causing death by negligence also presupposes the hope of the perpetrator to prevent the death of the victim, while at the same time, indirect intent consists of deliberately allowing the death of the victim to occur. In addition, indirect intent is characterized by the indifferent attitude of the perpetrator to what is happening. In case of murder with indirect intent, the perpetrator does not take any measures to prevent the crime and does not regret what happened.

General information about manslaughter

In modern Russian jurisprudence, the concept of manslaughter is not used. Previously, such a concept existed, and it was preserved in the criminal codes of a number of former Soviet republics of the USSR. However, in Russia the concept of “causing death by negligence” is used. We will use the word “murder” in this article because it is common in everyday life.

To constitute a crime, there must be guilt. Guilt can be in the form of intent, such crimes are called intentional, or in the form of negligence. Previously, such crimes were called unpremeditated or unintentional; in modern Russian jurisprudence, they were given the name crimes committed through negligence.

Note! The guilt of negligence can be divided into criminal recklessness and criminal negligence.

Guilt of frivolity, according to Art. 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is that the guilty person perfectly foresaw the possible grave consequences of his actions, but arrogantly believed that he could easily prevent the onset of grave consequences. When causing death through frivolity, the culprit chooses a dangerous method of action, counting on the fact that some of his personal qualities will help avoid tragic consequences.

Everyone saw cars rushing through city streets at breakneck speeds. They are driven by potential criminals due to frivolity. This is not the only, but the most common case of criminal frivolity - drivers believe that their experience will help avoid collisions with pedestrians and collisions with other objects.

Guilt in the form of negligence is that the offender did not foresee the consequences of his actions, although he was obliged to foresee.

The main difference between intentional crimes and crimes due to negligence is that a careless criminal not only does not want dangerous consequences to occur, but would also like to avoid them, while a citizen acting with intent either wants these consequences to occur or is indifferent to whether they will occur. they are or not.

Russian legislation allows sane citizens who have reached the age of 16 to be recognized as criminals for this type of act. Responsibility for premeditated murder begins at the age of 14.

Jurisprudence recognizes social relations in the field of ensuring life safety as the injured party. The protection of the rights and interests of an individual citizen, from the point of view of law, is ensured through the protection of public relations.

What does the law say about premeditated murder?

This definition may include any actions/inactions committed in relation to another person, resulting in death, but without the original intent to take life.

For example, a bus arrives at a public transport stop in compliance with all traffic rules. At this time, one of the people here decides to look out onto the roadway and gets hit on the head with the mirror of an approaching bus. The blow lands on the temple and turns out to be fatal.

Bottom line: the driver’s actions caused the death of a person, however, the defendant did not have malicious intent. Responsibility for such is regulated by the provisions of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Object of crime

Of course, the object of death due to negligence is the life of the victim. However, such crimes cannot be considered murder in the full sense of the word. In particular, there is always no motive or intention to kill a person.

In addition, here you can consider the definition of “accidental death”. Criminal liability does not apply to such actions. This term is used in situations where the accused does not suspect that the actions he performs can lead to death or takes measures to prevent death, but death still occurs.

Subjective side

This term refers to careless actions that lead to the death of a person. For example, a surgeon performs abdominal surgery without making sure that the patient has contraindications to anesthesia. As a result, the body gave an allergic reaction, and the person dies from lidocaine administered as anesthesia.

Types of unintentional murder

Taking into account the subjective side, the causes of actions leading to death due to negligence are two fundamental factors:

Frivolity - the defendant assumes that his actions are capable of causing death to a person, but assumes that he will be able to prevent the consequences. For example, a driver deliberately exceeds the speed limit, but is confident that he will be able to brake in front of a pedestrian who suddenly jumps out.
Negligence - the accused is not aware of the dangerous consequences of his actions, but by virtue of his position he must foresee and prevent them. Medical errors associated with incorrect diagnosis and treatment often appear here.

When investigating such crimes, a psychological examination is necessarily carried out, which establishes the characteristics of the actions being committed. For example, in the case of medical errors, the investigation needs to establish that the specialist had the opportunity to save the patient’s life, but did not take advantage of it.

Subject

When considering this type of crime, any citizen over 16 years of age can be considered a subject. However, in some cases, difficulties arise in determining the true culprit. This concerns violations of safety regulations at enterprises, when it is necessary to find out exactly whose self-confidence or neglect of official duties caused the tragedy. Moreover, judicial practice allows several persons to be held liable when death due to negligence is the result of joint activity.

In addition, the investigation also takes into account aggravating circumstances when the accused is under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Classification of victims

If a death due to negligence is being investigated, it is customary to classify crime victims according to three main criteria. It looks like this:

personal hostility - conflict situations arose between the victim and the accused;
provocation - the victim could be distinguished by aggressive and defiant behavior;
lack of relationship - the interests of the accused and the victim did not intersect.

According to the first two points, the accused may have ulterior motives or an unconscious desire to cause harm to the victim.

Composition of a criminal act

The main and necessary elements of the crime for the onset of criminal liability are reflected in the title of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The object of a criminal act—that which is harmed by the actions of the perpetrator—is human life.

The subject - the person who can be punished for this crime - is a sane person who has reached the age of 16 at the time of the commission.

The subjective side - the attitude of the perpetrator to the crime - is guilt in the form of negligence (Article 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). It is the subjective side that distinguishes the act in question from murder.

Negligence can be expressed:

In criminal frivolity - a person realizes that he is breaking some rules, admits that these actions may lead to negative consequences, while not wanting them and arrogantly hoping that they will not occur. For example, the perpetrator relies on his skill, physical strength, and other skills and abilities that will ensure the victim’s survival.
In criminal negligence, the perpetrator does not foresee the occurrence of negative consequences as a result of his illegal actions, although with sufficient care he could or should have foreseen them.

What distinguishes this form of guilt from an accident is that a person does not foresee the occurrence of bad consequences, but at the same time could not and should not foresee them (Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The objective side is the actions or inactions themselves, as a result of which the death of the victim is caused - it can be expressed in any actions of the perpetrator, as a result of which the death of the victim follows, with the exception of those provided for by special rules, which will be discussed below.

Most often, causing death by negligence is associated with failure to comply or improper compliance with any rules, standards, norms and other safety requirements, basic precautions when handling dangerous devices, mechanisms, etc.

Commentary to Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Causing death by negligence in the current legislation is identified as an independent crime. The characteristics of the object of this crime are identical to the characteristics of the main element of murder discussed above.

The objective side is expressed in the act in the form of action or inaction, consisting of a violation of the rules of household or professional precautions, consequences in the form of the death of the victim and the causal connection between them. Responsibility for “gross negligence” (violation of the rules for handling weapons, hunting rules, etc.), which included a real danger to human life, but did not actually lead to death, Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is not provided for.

To qualify the offense under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the delimitation of careless causing of death from other crimes, it is important to establish that the death of the victim occurred precisely as a result of careless actions that were not objectively aimed at taking life or causing serious harm to health, which is established based on the instruments and means of committing the crime, the nature and localization of injuries, relationships between the perpetrator and the victim and other circumstances of the case. Practice establishes signs of careless death in punching the head in a fight, carelessly introducing a toxic substance into the victim’s body instead of medicine, the actions of a dog breeder who unleashed guard dogs near a populated area, gross violation of the rules for handling weapons, etc. .

The subjective side of the crime under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, is characterized by guilt in the form of negligence. When committing a crime out of frivolity, the perpetrator foresees that as a result of his act the death of the victim may occur, but he arrogantly hopes to prevent it. When committing a crime through negligence, the perpetrator does not foresee the possibility of death, although according to the circumstances of the case he should have and could have foreseen.

When qualifying a crime on subjective grounds, it is very difficult to distinguish between murder with indirect intent and causing death due to frivolity. The main difference is seen in the absence in the case of intent and the presence in the case of negligence of a specific, objectively justified calculation to prevent consequences; in addition, in case of murder, the perpetrator foresees the likelihood of death from his own actions, and in case of negligence, the possibility of death in a similar situation of his own.

An incident should be distinguished from careless causing of death - innocent causing of harm when a person did not foresee, should not have and could not foresee the possibility of consequences in the form of death (see commentary to Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The subject of causing death by negligence is a physically sane person who has reached the age of sixteen; Criminal liability of persons aged fourteen to fifteen years for this act is excluded. The subject is general.

The qualifying signs of causing death by negligence are: causing death due to improper performance of professional duties and causing death to two or more persons (parts 2, 3 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

Improper performance of professional duties means a deliberate or careless violation by a person of official requirements and standards for his professional practice. To qualify, it is necessary to indicate exactly what the violation of the rules of professional activity was and whether this violation is causally related to the consequence of death.

The subjective side of this crime is determined by a careless attitude to the consequences when a person violates professional rules. If the violation of the rules was a way of realizing the intent to deprive the victim of his life, the act must be qualified as murder (clause 4 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 23, 1991 No. 1 “On judicial practice in cases of violations of labor protection and safety rules in mining , construction and other works").

The subject of this crime is a special one - a person who, by virtue of his profession, is obliged to comply with certain rules and standards. Responsibility of a special subject under Part 2 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is excluded if: a) the consequence in the form of death occurs subject to compliance with professional standards from other causes; b) if the violation of professional rules is caused by considerations of extreme necessity or reasonable risk; c) if, in violation of professional rules, the person did not and should not have foreseen the possibility of consequences in the form of death. If compliance with special rules of professional activity was imposed on a person erroneously, on false grounds or arbitrarily, without proper permission, then the violation of these rules, which resulted in death by negligence, cannot be qualified under Part 2 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which does not exclude liability under Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, if the person’s act consists of violating the norms and rules of precaution of a general nature, which objectively and subjectively could have been observed by him.

Part 2 Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a general rule in relation to some other provisions of the law (Part 2 of Article 124, Part 2 of Article 215, etc. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and therefore possible competition due to the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be resolved in favor of a special norm.

Causing death by negligence to two or more persons means the actual deprivation of life of more than one victim, and it does not matter whether the acts are committed simultaneously or at intervals in time. The infliction of death by negligence on one victim and grievous bodily harm on another must be qualified if there are grounds for this based on the totality of crimes provided for in Part 1 or 2 of Art. 107 and part 1 or 2 art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Careless causing of death in a number of articles of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is provided as a qualifying element of the crime (for example, part 3 of article 131, part 3 of article 205, etc. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). In other crimes, careless causing of death may be characterized by such a qualifying feature as the onset of grave consequences. In these cases, causing death is covered by a compound crime and additional qualifications under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not require it. However, if such a qualifying feature is absent, the offense is subject to assessment based on the totality of crimes. Thus, if, as a result of careless handling of fire, resulting in the destruction or damage of someone else’s property, the death of a person occurs, the actions of the perpetrator must be qualified collectively as causing death by negligence and destruction or damage to property by negligence (clause 11 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 5, 2002 N 14 “On judicial practice in cases of violation of fire safety rules, destruction or damage to property by arson or as a result of careless handling of fire”).

Due to the careless nature of the crime as part of the crime provided for in Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, complicity in it is impossible. The actions of the perpetrator, although they did not directly cause the death of the victim, but were expressed in the creation by negligence of conditions that contributed to the infliction of death on the part of a third party, are subject to qualification as careless infliction of death.

Examples

According to Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may qualify actions/inactions that resulted in the death of another person. Under certain circumstances this may be, for example, the following cases:

the owner released the dogs in the forest or city park early in the morning, assuming that no one was nearby, as a result of which the dog attacked the person, and he died from the injuries received;
death during a hunt due to improper behavior or placement of participants;
improper use of firearms;
delivering blows that did not cause harm, as a result of which the victim fell and received an injury incompatible with life, such as a traumatic brain injury;
actions/inaction of parents - for example, when parents put a child in bed with them, and, having fallen asleep, he is crushed, leaving him in a filled bath, a closed car in hot weather, other life-threatening circumstances, resulting in his death;
similar actions or inaction of other people in relation to helpless persons, disabled people, etc.
throwing a pitchfork, knife, or ax when they hit vital organs, for example, the head, etc.

How many years do you get for manslaughter during a fight?

There are various situations in life in which a person’s death often occurs during skirmishes. For example, a group of young people were sitting at a bar and drinking alcohol. Then one young man from the company did not like that some unfamiliar guy asked his girlfriend to dance. He got up from the table, walked up to the stranger and knocked him to the floor with a blow to the face.

While falling, the man hit his head hard on the table, resulting in a brain hemorrhage. The man died on the spot from his injuries.

The culprit was brought to justice under Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and was sentenced to 2 years in prison. However, this is not the maximum period. The longest sentence for manslaughter is 4 years - if two or more people died during a fight.

To determine the penalty for manslaughter, the judge takes into account the following circumstances:

Who is the suspect (has he been previously convicted or not)?
What were his reasons that prompted him to commit the crime?
Is the suspect an adult or not?
Were there any aggravating or mitigating factors?

Special formulations

Article 109 of the Criminal Code “Causing death by negligence” is the so-called general rule. That is, it punishes all careless actions or inactions that led to the death of the victim, with the exception of those specific actions/inactions that are prohibited by individual articles. Such norms are called special.

In other words, everything that is not prohibited by special rules, but through negligence resulted in the death of the victim, is punishable under Art. 109. If the Criminal Code contains an article prohibiting specific actions/inactions that resulted in the death of another person, this special article is applied. Most often, death in these norms is prescribed as an aggravating circumstance, and therefore a punishment.

There are quite a few such articles in the Criminal Code. In them, the death of the victim, which occurred as a result of the negligence of the perpetrator, can be specifically named as an aggravating circumstance . These are, for example, the following fairly common articles:

Part 4 Art. 111 – intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm;
clause "a" part 4 art. 131 – rape;
clause "a" part 4 art. 132 – sexual acts committed against the will of the victim;
Parts 2 and 3 art. 143 – violation of labor protection rules;
Part 2 Art. 167 – destruction of property;
Part 2 Art. 215.1 – termination, limitation of electricity supply, disconnection from other facilities important for life support;
Parts 2 and 3 art. 219 – violation of fire safety rules;
Art. 224 – careless storage of firearms;
clause “c”, part 3 and part 4 of Art. 238 - turnover of goods and services that do not meet safety requirements - under this article, in particular, persons who sold counterfeit, surrogate alcohol are responsible;
Part 4-6 tbsp. 264 – violation of traffic rules (traffic rules) and the use of vehicles – this article punishes, in particular, drivers who hit pedestrians;
Part 2-3 tbsp. 293 – negligence and many other articles of the Criminal Code.

In addition, death, which was caused by negligence by the actions/inaction of the perpetrator, may not be specifically named, but classified as “other grave consequences . Among the most common articles:

Part 3 Art. 285 – abuse of power;
clause "c" part 3 art. 286 - abuse of power and other articles of the code.

Cases qualified as malfeasance under the above standards may occur, for example, on the part of law enforcement officers vested with authority over citizens, including the use of force and special means.

Judicial practice under Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated March 21, 2018 N 300-P17
According to the verdict of the Butyrsky District Court of Moscow dated March 17, 2010, Sergushkina L.S. convicted under Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation using Art. of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 10 months of suspended imprisonment with a probationary period of 10 months.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated July 18, 2018 N 18-APU18-13

In the appeal, lawyer Zinnatullin M.M. in defense of the interests of Tikhomirova U.V. considers the sentence unfair, excessively cruel, passed without the necessary full examination of the criminal case materials and questioning of witnesses, which did not allow taking into account all the circumstances and arguments, including in favor of qualifying the offense under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Refers to the protocol of surrender dated February 26, 2017, personally drawn up by U.V. Tikhomirova, in which she voluntarily reported all the known circumstances of the crime, admitted her guilt and repented of her deeds. However, when passing the sentence, this mitigating circumstance was not taken into account by the court, which significantly influenced the determination of the amount of punishment, which, in the opinion of the defense, is excessively harsh and should be mitigated, in conjunction with the arguments that Tikhomirova U.V. has no previous convictions, is characterized positively, has a young child.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 28, 2018 N 47-APU18-8

In the appeal and addition to it, the convicted Shestakov V.P. asks to cancel the sentence. Believes that his actions should be qualified not under clauses “c”, “d”, “i” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and according to Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He claims that evidence of his guilt in the premeditated murder of a minor was not collected at the court hearing, the testimony of witnesses is unreliable, including witness Z., who could not hear what was happening in the apartment. Witness B. explained that he could have hit the child on the buttocks only for educational purposes. He insists that in the process of upbringing he did not calculate his strength and struck B., which resulted in the death of the victim. I did not go to a medical institution because, not having any special knowledge, I did not have the opportunity to assess the condition of the minor. The conflict situation was provoked by B., who on October 5, 2021, drank alcohol during the day and could not adequately assess the events that occurred. He also casts doubt on the testimony of witness N., who, according to the convict, being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, entered the dark room and saw nothing. He notes that the evidence examined at the court hearing was obtained in violation of the criminal procedure law, but the convicted person does not indicate in the appeal what these violations were.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 28, 2018 N 69-APU18-3

indicates a violation of the adversarial principle during the trial, the rejection of the defense's motions while satisfying the prosecution's motions; the court incorrectly presented Snurnitsyn’s testimony about the motives for the crime; refers to the lack of research into other versions of what happened, a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence; challenges the fairness of the punishment, which is imposed without taking into account its impact on the correction of the convicted person and the situation of his family; asks to cancel the verdict, return the case to the prosecutor or send it to a new trial, or reclassify his actions under Part 3 of Art. 109 and part 2 of Art. 167 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, imposing a punishment not related to actual imprisonment;

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 02, 2018 N 5-APU18-54

considered at the court hearing the appeal of M.M. Makhmudov. on the resolution of the Moscow City Court dated July 31, 2018, by which Makhmudov Mizrob Murodovich’s complaint against the resolution of the Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated June 20, 2018 on his extradition to the competent authorities of the Republic of Uzbekistan for criminal prosecution for crimes under paragraph “d” of paragraph .3 tbsp. 104 and part 2 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, was left without satisfaction.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 23, 2018 N 92-APU18-5

In the appeal, the convicted Oorzhak S.L. raises the question of changing the sentence and reclassifying her actions under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. She also asks to commute the sentence, pointing out that the trial court did not take into account the circumstances mitigating her punishment. Admitting guilt in the crime, the convicted person asks to take into account her age and state of health. At the same time, she disagrees with the negative characterization from her place of residence.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 16, 2018 N 69-APU18-5

lawyer Savin V.V. expresses disagreement with the verdict, sets out the version of the convicted person, according to which the shot at I. happened accidentally during the struggle with I. on the last and minor I. did not commit an attempt. The police officers who detained Klimchuk heard from him about a careless shot at the victim. He questions the reliability of the victim’s testimony. I. believes that he was in a state of shock, referring to the contradiction between his testimony about a shot at him and his son when they were hiding behind a snowmobile, and the inspection report about the absence of damage to the snowmobile. Other evidence does not confirm the fact of the shot at victim I. - the conclusion of a forensic expert, the inspection report of the jacket and hat, and the testimony about Klimchuk reloading the weapon is refuted by the fact that Klimchuk did not have cartridges during a personal search; criticizes the testimony of minor I. about three shots, expert G. about the direction of the wound channels in I.’s body. He believes that the court improperly did not interpret doubts about guilt in favor of the convicted person. He asks to change the sentence against Klimchuk, to reclassify his actions under Part 1 of Art. 222, part 1 art. 105 and part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2018 N 60-APU18-4

In the appeal, lawyer V.M. Stognienko raises the question of changing the sentence and reclassifying the actions of the convicted person from paragraph “a” of Part 2 of Art. 105 on part 3 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, pointing out that the conclusions of the court set out in the verdict do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the criminal case established by the court of first instance, the criminal law was incorrectly applied.

Determination of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 20, 2018 N 72-UD18-14

Part 1 Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year 10 months of imprisonment, part 1 of Art. 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 1 year 6 months of correctional labor, part 1 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation to 4 years in prison,

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated November 15, 2018 N 30-APU18-6

In the appeal and additions, lawyer R.N. Tokov. asks the verdict to be quashed and a new verdict is passed, according to which the actions of Goguev A.A. qualify under Art. 109 part 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation with the imposition of punishment not related to actual deprivation of liberty. Indicates that the verdict was based on the initial testimony in the case of the convicted Goguev A.A. that he fired shots at the victims from a distance of 15 meters. However, at the trial he testified that he shot from a distance of 40 meters and had no intention of taking the lives of the victims. Moreover, the third shot occurred because someone pulled his hand. The testimony of witnesses L. and K. on this matter is contradictory. Testimony of Goguev A.A. that due to poor eyesight he could not see the victims from a distance of 40 meters, is confirmed by the testimony of expert K. and other case materials. The verdict does not contain the data set out in the reports of examinations of the corpses of the dead, which contradict the data reflected in the expert opinions on the causes of their death, in terms of indicating the size of the wounds and defects in clothing; some injuries indicated in the reports of examinations of the corpses are not reflected in the conclusions expert.

Appeal ruling of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 13, 2018 N 4-APU18-41

In the appeals, the convicted Chernikov R.S. and his defender, lawyer L.V. Grubaya, ask to acquit R.S. Chernikov. according to paragraphs “d”, “e”, part 2 of Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the absence of corpus delicti in his actions, reclassify his actions from paragraph “c” of Part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on Part 1 of Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and mitigate the imposed punishment. In addition, Chernikov R.S. asks to hand over to Z. the material evidence in the case - the system unit of a personal computer.

Jurisdiction

According to the current law, carrying out checks on reports of crimes under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the investigation of criminal cases under it is carried out by investigators of the territorial departments of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation at the place where this incident occurred.

They also carry out verification activities and investigations according to a significant number of special norms, where one of the conditions of liability or an aggravating feature is the death of the victim due to the negligence of the perpetrator. This is, for example, Art. 131, 132, 143, 238, 285, 286, 293.

A preliminary investigation according to special norms of the Criminal Code is also carried out by units of other law enforcement agencies according to the rules established by Art. 150-151 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. For example, cases under Art. 111, 167, 264 and others are being investigated by investigators from the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Cases under some articles are investigated by police investigators, for example, under Art. 224.

Liability for manslaughter

Punishment for causing death by negligence is regulated by Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provides for 3 degrees of liability:

careless actions that caused death - imprisonment for 2 years, assignment of correctional/forced labor for a similar period;
death caused by negligent performance of official duties - 3 years of detention with a possible ban on certain types of activities for a similar period;
death of 2 or more persons - 4 years in prison, with a possible restriction of work activity in certain areas for up to 3 years.

Term for causing death by negligence

Punishment for part one

Punishment for the crime of causing death by negligence:

restriction of freedom for up to 2 years;
imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Causing death by negligence while performing professional duties is punishable (implies improper performance of professional duties):

restriction of freedom for up to 3 years;
imprisonment for up to 3 years.

It is left to the discretion of the court to impose punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities or hold certain positions for up to 3 years.

Improper performance of professional duties is the behavior of a person who, in full or in part, does not comply with official regulations and requirements imposed on him during the performance of professional functions.

Punishment for part two

Punishment for causing death by negligence of two or more persons provides for:

restriction of freedom for up to 4 years;
imprisonment for up to 4 years.

Just as in the previous case, it is left to the discretion of the court to impose or not to impose an additional punishment in the form of deprivation of the right to engage in certain activities or hold positions of a certain nature for 3 years.

What is the term for manslaughter - article of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The terms of punishment for sentences passed by the court under Art. 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, can be changed in the appeal, cassation or supervisory procedures. The relevant courts have the right to change the sentence of a lower court, both in terms of terms and in the chosen punishment. In addition, they can overturn the verdict or return the case for a new trial. The difference between the appellate and cassation instances is that the former makes decisions regarding sentences that have not entered into legal force.

If you believe that your rights were violated during the sentencing, contact the higher authorities of the courts with complaints. It is worth considering that higher courts consider cases in a rather formalized manner - the absence of the necessary papers or requirements in the complaint will lead to a decision not being made in your favor. For this reason, you should definitely involve a lawyer in the case; he will not allow such mistakes and will protect your rights.

The supervisory authority in such cases is the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia.

How can I file a complaint to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation?

The Supreme Court of Russia is also the court of appeal and cassation for decisions made by courts. Appeals are filed through the court that issued the verdict. Within the time limits established by the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, these courts will transfer them to higher authorities.

Cassation appeals are filed directly with the cassation court. A peculiarity of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is that it is necessary to appeal to it in appeal or cassation proceedings only after passing through all lower courts.

The complaint must contain:

name of the court;
FULL NAME. or the names of all participants in the process;
names of all courts that considered the case previously and an indication of their decisions being appealed;
precise indications of violations committed by lower courts;
clearly formulated requests of the complainant.

The complaint is signed by the applicant or his authorized representative. In the latter case, a power of attorney is attached to the complaint. The complaint must also be accompanied by copies of all decisions rendered in the case by the lower courts.

The number of copies of the complaint must correspond to the number of persons participating in the case.

Note! The deadline for filing a complaint is 1 month from the date of the lower court’s decision.

Only a highly qualified lawyer can competently draw up a petition, meet all procedural deadlines and achieve a decision in your favor. These are the lawyers who cooperate with our website. Contact them online for further advice. If necessary, they will join the cause.

Latest questions on the topic: “manslaughter"

Manslaughter

Hello!
Is it possible to find out how many years a relative can be given for manslaughter? During the fight, a relative hit the victim with a stick, he fell into a coma and died 5 days later. Alena, Omsk

manslaughter

Lawyer: Egor Shchelkunov

offline now

It all depends on the qualifications given by the investigator, the presence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The punishment is set by the court and the approximate period must be looked at according to the sanction of the article. But there will be a real deadline.

Ask a Question

Lawyer: Anton Oberemok

Manslaughter

Hello!
Please tell me it is possible to get out a person who is imprisoned for murder under Article 96, the murder was due to negligence, but we could not prove this because the brother of the deceased’s relative works in the authorities and this played a big role. My husband has already served half his sentence, a total term of 10 years; he has already served 5. Just tell me is it really possible to get him out or is it hopeless? Thanks in advance Oksana, Karaganda

manslaughter

Lawyer: Yanna Galagan

Manslaughter

hello, a friend was convicted (killed his son) under Article 105 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the murder was unintentional, the man died from one blow with a knife, the convicted person is characterized only on the positive side, he has not been brought to criminal or administrative liability before, he is 58 years old, all relatives of the judge They asked for a minimum sentence and even if possible a suspended sentence, but they were convicted not even at the minimum, they were sentenced to 7.6 years of strict regime, the complaints were rejected
Rosalia, city.

manslaughter

Lawyer: Vladimir Murashko

offline now

Hello Rosalia, again!

It seems no one wants to answer your question. You contacted me in the chat and I answered the same question. I will repeat here.

Even from the situation of the murder briefly described by you, it is not clear in any way that it was committed through negligence. Without knowing the materials of the case and based on your statements that “ the murder was unintentional, the man died from one blow with a knife,” we can imagine the situation: there is a quarrel between the defendant and the victim. At the same time, the defendant is holding a knife in his hands. At some point, one of them suddenly and unexpectedly bent down or threw his hand with the knife forward and, thus, the knife hit the victim in a vital part of the body, from which he died. Can such a version be considered plausible? You can imagine another situation: During the quarrel, the knife was in the hands of the victim, and with the blade in his direction. At some point, the defendant pushed the victim, without thinking about the consequences, and he ran into the knife he was holding in his hand.

Dear Rosalia, in all my extensive practice in the law enforcement system, I have never seen anything like what I described above. If there were attempts to explain the murder in a similar or similar setting, such explanations were easily refuted by expert opinions and other evidence.

I wrote all this to you so that you do not have any illusions about the possibility of changing or canceling the sentence in the situations you described. Sanction Part 1 Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for punishment from 6 to 15 years of imprisonment. It seems to me that the court took into account all the mitigating circumstances you indicated, as well as the age of the defendant, and therefore sentenced him to 7 years and 6 months in prison. Killing a person with a knife by causing damage to a vital organ through negligence - this, you know, looks like a fantasy.

Unintentional (careless) murder is considered to be cases when one pushed another, not expecting that he would fall and hit his head on a hard or sharp object, or a builder dropped a brick from a great height on the head of a person passing by, or threw the same brick over a high fence and hit the head of a person accidentally passing by, or... So, approximately, in such situations, a person will be found guilty of committing careless (not premeditated) murder.

Ask a Question

Manslaughter

How to prove that you killed a person through negligence and not intentionally if you added drugs and 2 years have passed
Olya, Perm

manslaughter

Lawyer: Ilya Kostromov

offline now

How to prove that you killed a person through negligence and not intentionally if you added drugs and 2 years have passed Olya

Olya,

and what events happened during these two years?

Has the person who supplied the drugs been identified? Prosecuted? Charged with premeditated murder? Tried? Found guilty?

Or what else happened?

If a sentence has been passed against a person, then in order to answer your question, you must first familiarize yourself with the criminal case or at least with the text of the sentence.

Ask a Question

The moment of the end of criminal acts

The end of the crime is the moment the consequences occur, namely, the death of the victim. A prerequisite for qualifying the crime of causing death by negligence is the presence of established cause-and-effect relationships between the act of the accused and the death of the victim.

The causes of this crime can be actions or inactions, as well as frivolity and negligence of the perpetrator. Guilt in this crime can only be excluded by the lack of foresight or the possibility of foreseeing the death of the victim (Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Innocent causing harm”).

Based on the judicial practice of causing death by negligence, most often the persons who have committed such crimes have a wide range of deformation of personality traits. There are three categories of criminals: unstable, random and malicious. The majority of persons who cause death by negligence exhibit various anomalies that do not exclude sanity, namely: psychopathy, alcoholism, mental retardation and organic brain diseases.

Victims and perpetrators in cases of this category

Among the victims, three groups can be distinguished:

victims who resisted the offender;
victims with victimized behavior;
victims whose actions are not causally related to the crime committed.

Most often, workers and employees face the crime of causing death by negligence related to improper performance of their professional duties. The type of activity of some citizens requires strict adherence to job descriptions. For example, doctors must perform their professional duties only in accordance with the regulations in force in the field of medicine. Working professions, such as crane operator, bulldozer operator, repairman and others, oblige people to be extremely careful when performing their functions.

According to statistics, more than half of crimes due to negligence are committed while intoxicated. Moreover, victims before the crime often drink alcohol with the perpetrators at their workplaces, which, of course, is unacceptable.

Crimes associated with carelessness and frivolity are often committed by persons leading an antisocial lifestyle. Contrary to safety standards, they equip their own homes with unauthorized gas and electrical appliances, and also carry out actions that defy logic and common sense, thereby endangering not only their lives, but also the lives of others.