Analysis Of The Trafifc Accident Accomplice "Substitute" Case

In this paper, starting from a case of Hu and Xia’s traffic accident joint negligence crime,according to the provisions of criminal law and judicial interpretation, combined with thetheory of anticipated possibility, principle of prohibiting repetitive assessment and the valuefunction of the system of voluntary surrender, then analyzed the traffic accident that Hu,oneof the joint negligence crime partners in crime let another suspect Xia “substitute” for him,trying to avoid or reduce their legal liability。In this circumstances,to Hu and Xia, how shouldthem be convicted and punished respectively。After extracting the focus and controversial views of this case, this article has carried onthe elaboration from two aspects of conviction and sentencing. In terms of conviction, thisarticle combined closely with the focus and controversial views of this case, according to thecriminal law and the judicial interpretation of traffic accident and voluntarily surrender,discussed the traffic offense “runs away” behavior,the behavior of the “substitute”differ frompure traffic accident “runs away” behavior in the harm done to society substantial, thebehavior that Hu instigating Xia “substitute” without conviction is not based on principle ofprohibiting repetitive assessment, the behavior that Hu instigating Xia “substitute” withoutconviction for lack of anticipated possibility,the behavior that Hu instigatingXia“substitute”should not be convicted as impairing testification for lack of anticipatedpossibility,Xia’s behavior to give false testimony should not be condemned convict for lack ofanticipated possibility, etc, and has summarized the theory of anticipated possibility andprinciple of prohibiting repetitive assessment。In sentencing circumstances, first of all, stating the criminal negligence can constitutevoluntary surrender。Second, introduces the system of voluntary surrender and criminal lawand relevant judicial interpretations and the value function of the system of voluntarysurrender. Finally, according to the criminal law and relevant judicial interpretation tovoluntary surrender and the value function of the system of voluntary surrender, discussedHu’s behavior constitute voluntary surrender。Before the narrate of research conclusion, referring to the Hu and Xia’s joint negligencebehavior of causing traffic accident does not belong to the joint crime, their behavior onlybelongs to the joint negligence crime, should not be applied to joint(deliberately)crime punishment rules for their conviction and punishment,they should be punished respectively inaccordance with traffic offence. Due to the problem is not directly related to the controversyin this case, so it is just a rough mentioned。Finally, base on the above analysis,this article concluded that Hu and Xia constitute trafficoffense respectively, for Hu “runs away”after traffic offence and instructing Xia “substitute”and Xia’s behavior of give false testimony to the police, based on the theory of anticipatedpossibility, should not be condemned; Based on the essence of the system of voluntarysurrender and relevant judicial interpretation and the value function of the system of voluntarysurrender,the behavior that Hu delivering up to justice can constitute voluntary surrender, andthis is the research conclusion about the controversial view。...