Hunan criminal case raises controversy: criminal injury assessment is suspected of personal prior commission

Article 11 of the General Rules of Judicial Approval Procedure stipulates that the judicial approval agency shall unify and accept the judicial approval of the case-making agency.In accordance with the relevant rules and legality of judicial practice of judicial approval of evidence in China, criminal injury approval can only be entrusted by the case-making agency, and the parties have no right to initiate injury approval in the sense of criminal proceedings.

Article 20 Paragraph 2 of the General Rules of the Judicial Approval Procedure stipulates that “Judicial Approvals who have participated in the same approval matters, or who have provided advice as experts, or who have been hired to participate in the same approval matters as persons with specialized knowledge, shall be avoided.”

Criminal injury identification is the legal proof-gathering act carried out by the investigation organ to determine the facts of the crime, is the core evidence for defining the crime and non-crime, the purpose is to judge whether the standard of criminal prosecution is reached, can not be privately linked by the interested parties in advance, can not be directly entrusted by the parties, even if it is entrusted can only be counted as expert advice, can not directly serve as the certification evidence obtained by the case organ according to law.

However, a case of deliberate injury, a key minor injury secondary judicial assessment opinion letter, exploded multiple procedural doubts: the victim case was initiated the next day in the name of personal advice to the same assessment body consultation inspection, the official commission of the public security is later than the individual; the assessment opinion exceeds the scope of the public security assessment commission; the assessment fee is paid by the victim personally; the commission contractor is filled in as the victim himself.

First, the next day of the case, the individual first inspection, the public security commissioned six days after the official landing

The case was suspected of intentional injury, the victim was injured on January 29, 2025 before Xu. According to the judicial assessment notice in the case volume (Shu Zhen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen Chen

The official certification commission of the Shimen County Public Security Bureau on February 5, 2025 was commissioned by the same certification body, and the person identified as Yellow Shinyang, and the entire six days have passed since the personal first consultation examination.

The re-assessment application submitted by the lawyer puts into question: the victim bypassed the case organ to complete the inspection, the assessment agency before the official commissioned acceptance, has been in contact with the injured, fixed injury records, the neutrality of the identification from the source buried the hidden danger, the commission of the public security is more like a back-up to the personal preliminary inspection.

More attention is paid to the details of the commissioning procedure: the judicial identification commissioned by the public security in the name, the identification fee of 1550 yuan is paid by the individual of the victim; the contractor on the judicial identification identification mandate is filled in the column of the victim himself, contact address, contact phone are all personal information of the victim.

The legal funds for the identification of criminal injuries should be borne by the case authority.The identification fee is paid directly by the interested parties in the case, the actual operation of the commission is conducted by the victim, the name is entrusted to the public security, but the actual operation is dominated by one of the parties, this set of operations is very rare in the practice of criminal injuries identification, raising reasonable doubts about the existence of interests of the evaluation agency.

Beyond the scope of the commission, independently add “three-term identification”, called the public security investigation commission, actually the victim commission

The mandate issued by the Shimene County Public Security Bureau is very clear: it requires only judicial identification of the injury (grade of injury), for criminal cases to determine whether it constitutes a crime, and does not entrust the wrong period of work, care period, nutrition period evaluation.

However, the final issued judicial identification notice will rewrite the assignment matter to the extent of damage and error period, care period, nutrition period evaluation (hereinafter referred to as the "three-phase identification"), in addition to the error period 120 days, care period 60 days, nutrition period 60 days.

"Three-phase assessment" is a specialized assessment project that serves civil compensation, does not belong to the category of criminal injury assessment, must be explicitly authorized by the client to carry out.The investigation agency has not entrusted the "three-phase assessment", combined with the prior consultation examination of Xu, the assessment fee is paid by Xu, and the specific assessment of Xu, etc. The assessment agency must be based on Xu's personal requirements to increase the assessment project, and the assessment opinion is more outraged: it is called the public security investigation commission, and the suspicion of the victim is entrusted to Xu.

The assessment opinion does not comply with the procedural norms and the neutrality requirements obtained by the evidence for injury assessment, and can only be used as a civil compensation for injury assessment opinion.

Multiple avoidance of doubts: the examiner intervened in advance in medical examination, and even participated in the production of critical medical records.

The case material exposed more sharp avoidance controversy: the report issued by the examiner Yuan Shenyang, before the public security commissioned the examination, in addition to the reception of the victim's personal consultation examination, also the hospital's disability level of the assessment of the doctor's status, for Xu previously applied for the case's core evidence MRI imaging inspection, this MRI report, is precisely the key basis for the assessment opinion paper to determine the fresh fracture of the ribs.

Simply put: the examiner first applies as a clinical doctor, generates key medical history imaging materials, and then audits the examination report applied for by himself as a judicial examiner, according to which the assessment conclusions of the second level of minor injuries are drawn.

In addition, according to the statements of the parties, during the assessment process, before the assessment document has not been issued, the victim has also contacted the assessor of the case privately by phone after leaving the hospital, consulting the injury and hospitalization related issues. The assessment procedure is closed, the assessor communicates privately with one of the parties, further increasing public doubts about the neutrality of the assessment.

At the same time, the lawyer questioned the substantive character of the professional qualifications of two examiners: Yuan Yuyuan's registration title is a doctor in clinical medicine, and the legal doctor's sequential title; another examiner, Ding Yuan, was pointed out in the complaint response to the conceptual misreading of the core indicators of the bone density report

• the "total bone density variation coefficient" used to measure the accuracy of the detection instrument, distorted into the high bone mass of the patient's diagnostic indicator.

Medical reports show that T-value indicates

• 3.2, belongs to severe osteoporosis, the risk of fractures is high. Severe osteoporosis significantly reduces the threshold of the ribs, and mild external forces may cause fractures. This leads to the core professional controversy: are the consequences of fractures mainly caused by external forces, or are trauma and severe osteoporosis in common?

The standard for the identification of the degree of human injury clarifies the rules for the treatment of the injury relationship: the injury is equivalent to both the role of the disease itself, should reduce the level of injury, and the minor injury should be reduced to minor injury.The original certification opinion paper although copies the results of the inspection of severe osteoporosis, but does not fully carry out the injury relationship analysis, there is no distinction between the size of the external forces and the individual osteoarthritis, directly identify the external forces as the main cause, assess the minor injury second level.

Core Question: When key criminal evidence process is in doubt, how to maintain the bottom line of justice and fairness

In criminal cases involving intentional injury, the injury assessment notice is the core evidence that drives the whole case. Once the second level of minor injury is established, the defendant shall bear criminal responsibility; if the assessment is overturned to minor injury, the nature of the case will change fundamentally.

An examination opinion, in order to be able to serve as a criminal case evidence, not only the final conclusion is scientific, the commissioning process, the avoidance of rules, the acquisition of examination materials, the scope of examination all must strictly abide by the legal procedure.

At present, the case has entered the trial phase of the court, the lawyer has officially submitted the "re-assessment application" to the people's court of Shimene County, put forward all the above doubts, and applied to the court to entrust a new neutral body to re-implement the injury assessment.

The dispute in this case is not only about the fate of the defendant in this individual case, but also reflects the underlying logic of the judicial assessment system: the criminal injury assessment is forced to require the unified commission of the case, prohibits the unilateral initiation of the parties, the purpose is to isolate the interference of interests, to preserve the objective neutral line of life of the forensic assessment. When the commission, payment, preliminary examination, critical medical history is generated, the essence of the assessment opinion conclusion according to the scope of the parties require the assessment, there are signs of the one party's deep intervention, whether the assessment conclusion can withstand the double examination of law and medicine, the court has to further review.