Bodrova, on a family contract, grew watermelons on the collective farm

to solving problems on the topic "crimes against life and health" (Chapter 18)

I. As a specific object of crimes provided for by Chapter 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, are life and health.

Based on the direct object of the crimes provided for by Ch. 16 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, they can be divided into two groups:

a) crimes against life (Art. 105-110 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

b) crimes against health (Articles 111-118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

c) crimes that endanger health (Articles 119-125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

II. Algorithm The statement of the solution to the problem includes the following sequence of actions:

1) The answer to the question posed.

2) The legal framework, which is formed by the student on the basis of the plot of the problem and includes the provisions of the criminal law that can claim to be applied to this case.

3) Justification of the decision with reference to the relevant legal regulations and the factual circumstances set out in the storyline of the problem.

Solving problems also presupposes reliance on the relevant provisions of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

III. As an example, the solution of problem No. 455 is proposed.

1. Grinev's actions must be qualified according to part 2 of paragraph 3) of article 105

Efremov's actions shall be qualified under part 2, paragraph 3) of article 105 with reference to article 33, part 3

Based on the literal interpretation of the plot of the task, Nilov and Kolintsev did not know about the intent of Efremov and Grinev to murder, they did not commit any actions against the victim, they did not provide assistance to Efremov and Grinev and, accordingly, the subjects of the crime provided for in part 2, paragraph 3) of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are not.

2. Legal framework: st.25,32,33,35,105,316

Resolution of the plenum of the Supreme Court No. 1, dated January 27, 1999 "On judicial practice in murder cases."

3. Rationale for the decision:

Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation regulates responsibility for murder, i.e. intentionally causing death to another person. The subjective side of murder is characterized by guilt only in the form of intent; homicide for hire should be qualified as murder conditioned by the receipt of material or other remuneration by the perpetrator of the crime. Persons who organized the murder for a fee, incited to committing it or assisted in the commission of such a murder, are liable under the relevant part of Art. 33 and clause "h" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Based on the plot, Efremov suggested that Grinev commit murder for money in the amount of 140 thousand rubles, to which Grinev agreed. Grinev directly carried out the objective side of the crime under article 105, part 2, p3, luring the victim, putting handcuffs on him, putting a bag on his head Efremov did not take direct part in the commission of the crime, however, in accordance with Article 33, Part 3, he is the organizer of this crime. Based on the literal interpretation of the plot of the task, Nilov and Kolintsev did not know about the intent of Efremov and Grinev to murder, they did not commit any actions against the victim, they did not provide assistance to Efremov and Grinev and, accordingly, are not subjects of the crime provided for in part 2, paragraph 3) of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Their actions can only be assessed as involvement in a crime, however, responsibility for involvement in a crime arises only for concealment (Article 316), however, in accordance with the plot, their actions do not see signs of corpus delicti provided for in Article 316 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

455. Efremov, with the aim of killing the husband of his mistress Pavlova G., offered Grinev to murder Boris Pavlov, for which he promised to pay him 140 thousand rubles. When G. Pavlova was on night duty, Grinev came in a medical gown to B. Pavlov and said that his wife was in the hospital and, if he so wishes, they would take him to the hospital in a car. B. Palov agreed to go, went out with Grinev into the street, where he was seated in the back seat between Grinev and Efremov. The car was driven by Nilov, next to the driver was the 4th member of the group - Kolintsev, to whom Grinev had informed the day before that they were going to "get even with one here." As soon as Pavlov B.got into the car, Grinev commanded: "Hands behind your back!" and handcuffed him. They put a plastic bag on Pavlov B.'s head and twisted it with a rubber band. A few minutes later Pavlov B. suffocated.

The corpse of the victim was thrown into the manhole by the participants in the murder. Efremov gave Grinev 940 thousand rubles right there at the car.

Conduct a legal analysis of the composition of the murder and a description of the qualifying circumstances.

Qualify the actions of the persons indicated.

456. Filimonov, having decided to steal money at the place of work from the cash register of the shipyard, began to observe the work of the cashier. After making sure that there was a large amount of money in the cash register, after work he went after the cashier Okhotina, who had the keys to the cash register and the safe with her, attacked her, hit her twice on the head with his fist, causing her to faint. He dragged Okhotina into the bushes, where she regained consciousness and screamed. Then Filimonov struck the victim on the head with a stone, after which he strangled her with a belt.

Taking the keys to the cash register and the safe from the victim, Filimonov arrived at the plant management building, entered this building through the window, opened the door of the cash register with the stolen keys, and then the safe and stole 3.5 million rubles from it.

Identify the objects of criminal encroachment.

Are there qualifying circumstances in this case?

Qualify what Filimonov did.

457. Gladko decided to visit the disco, but due to a state of strong intoxication he was not allowed into the hall. Angered by this, Gladko returned home, drank another drink and at about 11 pm returned to the disco, armed with a TT pistol that had been wounded earlier with spare clips and a combat grenade. Remembering that he was "seriously offended" here, he pulled out the pin and threw a grenade at a group of young people, and then opened fire on them from a pistol. As a result of these actions, Barkov and Yuryev died at the scene of the incident, three of them were seriously injured, two were of moderate severity. During a search in Gladko's apartment, 5 combat grenades and 70 cartridges for a TT pistol were found and seized.

Qualify actions Smoothly.

458. Mikheev, Kipchakov and Babaev drank alcoholic beverages. After seeing Babayev off, Mikheev and Kipchakov decided to go to Shamina's to finish the rest. Rising to the landing, Kipchakov kicked open the door of the apartment. Shamina was outraged by their behavior and said that she would not let them into the apartment. Then Mikheev took a kitchen knife from the pocket of his fur coat and said that he would stab it. Frightened by the threat, Shamina allowed them to enter. In the apartment Mikheev and Kipchakov continued to drink alcohol, and then Kipchakov left for wine, followed by Mikheev.

On the street Mikheev met an unfamiliar to him Pogorelov. Passing along a narrow snowy path, Pogorelov accidentally touched Mikheev. In response, Mikheev, swearing with obscene words, took out the same kitchen knife from his pocket and stabbed Pogorelov in the chest. After that Mikheev turned to Pogorelov with the words: “What, is it not enough for you? More? ", To which the victim replied:" And so in the heart ", walked along the path for about 150 m and sat down. The police officers who came up called an ambulance. As a result of timely surgical intervention, Pogorelov's life was saved. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the victim suffered serious harm to his health in the form of a penetrating wound into the pleural cavity of the cardiac shirt and the anterior wall of the left ventricle of the heart.

Identify the objects of criminal encroachment.

Determine the motive for the deed. Qualify Mikheev's actions.

459. Abashev was traveling in a bus driven by the driver Krylov, next to which was a locksmith from the vehicle fleet Varkanov. At the final stop, Krylov began to check passengers for their tickets. Abashev, upon exiting the bus, refused to show the ticket and, in response to Varkanov's demand to stay in the bus to sort out the ticketless travel, unexpectedly pulled a hunting knife from his pocket and stabbed Varkanov in the chest. Abashev jumped out of the bus and tried to escape, but was detained by police officers. Varkanov died of a heart wound.

Determine the motive for the murder and the type of intent. Are there any circumstances in Abashev's actions that aggravate responsibility for the murder?

Distinguish between hooligan murder and murder in connection with the performance of the victim's official activities or the fulfillment of a public duty.

460. Suspecting his wife of adultery, Purpurov often beat her, as a result of which she and her 2 children moved to a private apartment, but then returned to her husband. However, Purpurov beat his wife again, and she, taking the children, left. In the following days, he offered his wife to make up, but she, despite repeated requests, refused to return.

Once, when Purpurova went to bed, he came to her drunk and again began to persuade her to continue living together. Purpurova refused. In the conversation, Purpurov asked where she got the furniture and the gas stove from. She replied that the director of the Mayorov plant helped her to acquire these things. Jealous of his wife for Mayrov, Purpurov grabbed a kitchen knife and, in the presence of the children, began to hit his wife in various parts of the body. When his son Victor tried to take the knife away, Purpurov wounded him in the arm. Purpurova suffered 7 stab wounds, including damage to the lungs and heart, from which she died.

Qualify the crime committed by Purpurov. Does the commission of the murder of the victim in the presence of her children affect the qualification of the crime?

Establish the motives for the murder and wounding of the son.

461. Volin, who worked as a plumber at the plant, went hunting without permission from the administration of the plant and was absent from work for 12 days. In order to justify the truancy, Volin presented a sick leave. Shop foreman Bychkov, suspecting deception, went to the clinic and established a forgery of the sick leave. Volina was recorded absenteeism and deprived of part of her wages.

On this basis, Volin harbored hatred of Bychkov and promised him: “Remember! You did it for me, and I will do it for you, so much so that you won't see your children ... ”Volin made an improvised explosive device and secretly installed it in an iron box in Bychkov's office room. After a while, opening the box, Bychkov saw an unfamiliar object, took it in his hands, an explosion occurred, as a result of which the victim lost his right arm, and his left arm and shoulder were shattered. Bychkov, who lost consciousness, was taken to the hospital and regained consciousness only on the 8th day.

Identify objects of encroachment. Analyze the subjective side of the crimes committed. Determine the motives for Volin's actions. Qualify what Volin did.

462. After drinking alcoholic beverages, for the purpose of rape, Solodov took Onkova, who was drunk, under the stairs on the first floor of the building under construction. After Onkova's refusal to engage in sexual intercourse with him voluntarily, he struck strong punches in the face of the victim and tried to commit a violent intercourse, undressed her, undressed himself, but the victim put up strong resistance to him. To overcome the resistance and for revenge for her resistance, Solodov subjected her to severe beating and humiliation: he struck with great force with his fist and legs shod in low shoes about 20 blows to various parts of the body, 11 blows to the head, causing her a blunt craniofacial injury and many other bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim.

Identify the object of the attack. Qualify Solodov's deed. Are there any qualifying circumstances of the crime in Solodov's actions?

463. Karuzin in the courtyard of his house was beaten up by Voitin late in the evening. After that, Karuzin entered the house, took a kitchen knife and, going out into the courtyard, stealthily approached Voitin and stabbed him in the chest, shoulder and head, and then stabbed Baranov in the thigh, who was trying to prevent the attack. Voitin died of the injuries he received, and Baranov suffered minor damage to his health.

Qualify Karuzin's actions. What are the reasons for these actions?

464. Bodrova grew watermelons on a collective farm on a family contract.Every morning she found broken watermelons on the melon. At the end of the summer, they decided to set up an ambush to catch the night thieves and report them to the police. Bodrova's 15-year-old son Nikolai also asked to be ambushed.

13-year-old Dima and Sergey entered the melons at night, in search of ripe watermelons they began to beat them with a stick. Hearing the noise and footsteps of the offenders, Nikolai and the watchman fired one shot into the air. “It was an order to stand. They had to obey, ”Nikolai later explained. But the teenagers did not understand the order and ran. Then Nikolai fired a second shot at the fleeing, seriously wounded Sergei, damaging his left kidney, spleen, and liver. In the body of this teenager, 56 pellets were found. From the received injuries, Sergei died in the hospital 3 days later.

Is Nikolay Bodrov subject to criminal responsibility for murder?

Can it be considered that his actions were aimed at arresting the criminal?

465. On April 10, at about 21:00, Sterligov brought the bucket to the dustbin. When he was returning home, he was stopped at the gate of his house by unknown persons, one of whom hit Sterligov on the head with his hand, causing slight harm to his health. Then Sterligov ran home, took the disassembled double-barreled hunting rifle in a case, assembled it, took 2 rounds from the bandolier in another room, loaded the rifle and ran out of the house. On the street outside the hostel, he saw 3 guys. Mistakenly believing that these were the people who attacked him, Sterligov first fired one warning shot, and mortally wounded the underage Gusev with the second shot. In the case, it was established that Gusev had nothing to do with the attack on Sterligov. Having injured Gusev, Sterligov returned home and asked his wife to call the police and an ambulance.

The court of the first instance qualified Sterligov's actions as murder without aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The cassation court concluded that Sterligov committed the murder in a state of sudden strong emotional excitement caused by the unlawful violent actions of the victim.

The supervisory authority, having indicated that the murder in a state of sudden strong emotional agitation presupposes a direct reaction of the perpetrator to the wrongful actions of the victim, canceled the ruling of the cassation instance, leaving the verdict of the first instance court unchanged.

Analyze the corpus delicti in Sterligov's actions.

466. Barinov came home drunk and systematically severely beat his wife Galina, stabbing her with a stick, a whip and a penknife. Once Galina, after another beating, could not stand the abuse and beatings, jumped out of the window of an apartment on the sixth floor and died.

Give a criminal-legal assessment of the deed.

467. Kislov was in an intimate relationship with Sarova for a long time and repeatedly offered her to marry him. However, Sarova refused, arguing that because of the children she could not leave her husband, whose marriage she divorced, but continued to live together. Therefore, Kislov decided to commit the murder of Sarov.

To this end, Kislov, knowing that Sarov was alone in the apartment, came to him and demanded to leave his ex-wife. Having received a negative answer, Kislov grabbed a metal rod with which he hit Sarov 15 times on the head. The victim died at the scene from the received bodily injuries.

By the verdict of the court, Kislov was convicted of murder, committed with particular cruelty.

In a supervisory procedure, the sentence was changed and Kislov's actions were qualified as murder committed without aggravating circumstances. At the same time, the supervisory authority pointed out that the fact of inflicting multiple injuries on the victim by itself cannot testify to the particular cruelty of the murder.

Conduct a legal analysis of the corpus delicti of this crime.

Determine the motive for the murder. Describe the signs of the particular cruelty of the murder.

468.Isaev, being drunk, unauthorizedly removed the battery from Shutikov's motorcycle and began to install it on his motorcycle. In this regard, Shinkarev approached him, who during the conflict that arose struck Isaev in the face. After that, Isaev ran into the house, loaded the sawn-off shotgun and, going up to Shinkarev and Shutikov, who were standing nearby, fired a shot into the ground at their feet. When Davydov approached them, Shinkarev pushed Davydov away, and he fell, after which Isaev fired at Shinkarev, who died at the scene from his injury.

It was established that Isaev fired an aimed shot at Shinkarev, mortally wounding him on the right side of the chest. The forensic medical examination concluded that the shot was fired from a distance of no more than 2 m. From the diagram of the scene and the testimony of Davydov and Shutikov, it can be seen that at the time of the shot they were not in front of or behind Shinkarev, but away from him.

Expand the subjective side and motive of the deed.

Qualify Isaev's actions.

Will the qualification of the crime change if it is established that Davydov and Shutikov were next to, in front of or behind Shinkarev?

469. Gridin of Krasova, who lives with him, was visiting Zorin, where he drank alcoholic beverages with others. In a state of intoxication, Gridin went home and brought a tape recorder belonging to her without the knowledge of Krasova. Krasova expressed her dissatisfaction with this; a quarrel arose between her and Gridin, during which he stabbed her in the face with his hand. Tselikhin, who was here in a strong degree of intoxication, with the words "enough, calm down" hit Gridin in the face with his hand. To this, Gridin took a kitchen knife and inflicted 2 blows on Tselikhin in the abdomen. The victim died from the received injuries.

The actions of Tselikhin were assessed by the court as aimed at suppressing the offense on the part of Gridin, and therefore the murder of Tselikhin was qualified as committed in connection with the performance of the victim's public duty.

Determine the motive for the murder and reveal the content of the subjective side of the crime committed by Gridin.

Qualify what Gridin has done.

470. Drunk Mamatov Aren at his home made a quarrel with his wife Mamatova Klara and hit her. Fearing further beating from her husband, Mamatova, leaving her one and a half year old son at home, went to her parents who lived nearby and told them about the incident. Fearing for her young son, she asked her brother Ali Mamatov to go after him. The latter on the street saw Mamatov Arena, who was walking towards their house, holding a crying child in his arms. Ali Mamatov asked to give him the child, but Aren Mamatov stabbed him in the stomach, and when the victim began to run away, threw a knife at him. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the victim suffered a penetrating wound into the abdominal cavity with damage to the stomach, which was life-threatening at the time of application.

Identify the object of the attack. Qualify the actions of Mamatov Arena.

471. Adylov killed Alaev's brother. On this basis, Alaev decided to take revenge on Adylov and kill him. 10 years later, having met Adylova on the street, Alaev stabbed him in the side with a knife. The wounded Adylov began to run away. Believing that the death of the victim from one blow would not occur, Alaev chased after him and, when the victim fell, stabbed him 5 more stabs in the chest and in the right hand. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical expert, out of 6 injuries inflicted on the victim, only one penetrates the abdominal cavity and belongs to the category of serious injuries that resulted in death.

Are there any signs of blood revenge in the deed?

Show the difference between the motive of blood revenge and other motives of revenge. Qualify Alaev's actions.

472. Semin, being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, having quarreled with Mikhasov, stabbed him in the stomach, causing grievous bodily harm. The victim died 3 days later in the hospital.

According to the conclusion of the forensic expert, the examination of Mikhasov's corpse revealed a penetrating wound to the abdomen with damage to the small intestine. Death came from a general disease - acute myocardial infarction.

Qualify what Semin has done.

473. Fedorov, in a quarrel with his partner Suchkova because of her improper lifestyle, stabbed her in the right thigh, after which he left the apartment and into the street. Returning an hour later, he found that the victim was dead.

According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the death of the victim came from shock and massive blood loss.

Identify the object of the attack.

Analyze the subjective side of the crime committed by Fedorov. Qualify what Fedorov did.

474. Shumilin, after serving his sentence for an especially serious crime, lived in his father's private house. While drunk, Shumilin quarreled with his father and then, taking a small plate and holding it in his left hand, entered his room. The father, indignant, began to push his son out of the room and hit him on the head with a glass vase, causing slight harm to his health.

In response, Shumilin with a plate, which broke at that moment, inflicted cut wounds on his father's chin and neck, damaging the jugular vein and the common carotid artery. Shumilin's father died from the injuries received at the scene.

According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the victim was found to have two cut wounds in the neck with damage to large main blood vessels, resulting from the impact of a solid object with uneven pointed edges, which could be a fragment of a broken plate.

The regional court qualified Shumilin's actions as murder committed without mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

The lawyer's cassation appeal indicates that the case does not contain data confirming Shumilin's intent to kill his father, as evidenced by the object (plate) used for the attack, which does not have any pronounced properties that suggest the possibility of taking a person's life.

Can you agree with the arguments of the defense lawyer?

Analyze the subjective side of the deed. Is it possible to conclude that Shumilin, striking with a broken saucer, foresaw the possibility or inevitability of causing death to the victim, wished it or deliberately allowed it, or was indifferent to it?

475. While in the park Khashkin, Fenyuk and eighteen-year-old Suvorin drank alcoholic beverages. At the same time, Khashkin expressed himself with obscene language. Suvorin warned him to stop using foul language. Then Khashkin began to use obscene words against Suvorin and pulled a knife from his pocket. In response, Suvorin hit Khashkin in the face, tried to knock the knife out of his hands. Having told him: "Throw away the knife!", He began to wave the screwdriver. Trying to knock out the knife, Suvorin hit Khashkin in the face, and Khashkin stabbed Suvorin in the chest, causing a penetrating wound with damage to the lung. These injuries were recognized as serious and life-threatening.

The court found Khashkin guilty of attempted murder of Suvorin. Assessing what had been done, the court concluded that Khashkin, stabbing in the chest with a knife, foresaw the possibility of causing death to the victim, although he did not want to take his life, but he deliberately allowed such a consequence to occur, i.e. acted with indirect intent.

Can we agree with this conclusion of the court? Give a legal assessment of Khashkin's actions. Qualify what Khashkin did.

476. The Alekseevs, during their entire life together, especially in recent years, constantly quarreled. Alekseev, being drunk, repeatedly beat his wife, who was hiding from him in the attic, in the forest, she was often seen with bruises. On the day of the incident, another quarrel occurred between them, Alekseev beat his wife, threatened to kill him, and then said that the grandson was in fact his son from his daughter-in-law.Hearing this, Alekseeva grabbed a bucket and began to hit her husband with them, causing grievous bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim.

The son of the deceased and the daughter-in-law showed that the victim was always the initiator of the scandals. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, during her examination after this incident, Alekseeva found injuries in the form of abrasions and bruises of the face, trunk, lower limbs, which could have been caused as a result of the action of blunt objects at the time when the crime was committed. As Alekseeva testified, on the day of the incident, after her husband had beaten her, she fled into the street, and after a while returned to the house. The husband again began to quarrel with her, and then said "this" about her grandson, after which she grabbed a bucket standing next to her and, not remembering herself, began to beat her husband, who was sitting on the porch, with it.

Qualifying the deed as murder without mitigating circumstances, the court indicated in its verdict that “this situation was not unusual for Alekseeva, and therefore there is no reason to believe that she was inflicted with a grave insult that could have led her into a state of sudden strong emotional agitation”.

Can we agree with the arguments of the court? What actions can cause intense emotional disturbance? Analyze the crime committed by Alekseeva.

477. Sabirov, living in a communal apartment and working as a musician in an orchestra, often played the violin in his apartment until lunchtime. This very annoyed his neighbor Kotov, who warned more than once that if he didn’t quit “pulling his nerves,” he would deal with him. Once, having met Sabirov in the common kitchen, Kotov attacked Sabirov and struck several blows on the victim's fingers with the butt of a hatchet, resulting in paralysis of the fingers of his left hand.

Qualify Kotov's actions.

478. Previously convicted of theft and robbery, Kravchuk lived in the apartment of his partner Chekanova and her parents, the Dukhatsins. In the evening, all the named persons were in this apartment. About 21 o'clock his acquaintances Pavlichuk and Gavrilushkin came to Kravchuk. The door was opened by Kravchuk, who, like Pavlichuk, was drunk. To Pavlichuk's demand to let him into the apartment, Kravchuk refused. Then Pavlichuk hit Kravchuk, and a fight broke out between them. Gavrilushkin, Chekanova and her parents tried to separate the fighters. Chekanova's father fell at the same time, Chekanova and her mother lifted him up and took him to the apartment, Kravchuk followed them, and the fight stopped. However, having washed off the blood, Kravchuk grabbed a knife and returned to the staircase, where, during the renewed fight, he stabbed Pavlichuk in the chest. Pavlichuk was taken to the hospital; where he died.

The court qualified Kravchuk's actions under Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In the cassation appeal, the convict's lawyer asked to re-qualify Kravchuk's actions under Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. According to the lawyer, as a result of the violence used by the victim, the perpetrator has disorganized the volitional sphere in the form of a narrowing of consciousness, which does not exclude sanity, but at the same time makes it difficult to adequately perceive reality and choose the best option in the current situation.

Are there grounds to admit the existence of these circumstances in this case?

479. Chertkov drank alcoholic beverages with other fellow villagers during the day. While drinking, Kurmashev insulted Chertkov, which led to a quarrel, during which they pushed each other, but the fight was prevented and they went home.

In the evening of the same day on the street they met again. Kurmashev invited Chertkov to step aside and talk, he agreed. Walking from behind, Kurmashev unexpectedly struck Chertkov in the lower back with a screwdriver, causing slight harm to his health. In the darkness Chertkov, feeling a blow to the lower back and pain, turned to Kurmashev. To his question what Kurmashev was doing, he answered: "Know ours" and went to Chertkov.Chertkov pulled a knife from his pocket and hit Kurmashev twice in the chest, causing a penetrating chest wound with heart damage. Kurmashev died of his injuries.

Chertkov's actions were qualified by the court under Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Decide if the murder was committed in a state of sudden violent excitement, exceeding the limits of necessary defense, or in a state of necessary defense? Is Chertkov subject to criminal liability for what he has done?

480. Malafeev, being in a de facto marital relationship with Tarasova, systematically beat her and her young child, as a result of which she was forced to flee to her parents. Each time Malafeev came for Tarasova, broke into the doors of the parents' apartment, smashed the windows and forcibly took her to his place. Tarasova's father A. Tarasov repeatedly appealed to the police with a request to force Malafeev to stop bullying his daughter and his family, but no measures were taken. When, once again fleeing from the beatings of her roommate, Tarasova ran at night with her child to her parents, Malafeev and his friend Chemodanov, who were drunk, began to demand that Tarasova come out to them, threatening otherwise to use the sawn-off shotgun of a hunting rifle. Having received a refusal, Malafeev fired a shot, knocked out the glass in the window and tried to enter the house. Then Tarasov ran out into the street and struck Malafeev on the head with a wooden bar, which caused him to fall, having managed to pass the sawn-off shotgun to Chemodanov. Waving a sawed-off shotgun, Chemodanov shouted that he would shoot everyone. Fearing reprisals, Tarasov also struck him on the head with this bar. As a result of the inflicted head injuries, Malafeev and Chemodanov died.

The investigating authorities qualified Tarasov's actions as the murder of two persons. The regional court acquitted Tarasov of the charge of the murder of Malafeev, indicating that the accused acted in a state of necessary defense. At the same time, the court found Tarasov guilty of the murder of Chemodanov and convicted him of murder in excess of the limits of necessary defense.

Is Tarasov subject to criminal liability?

Could it be considered that he exceeded the limits of necessary defense? Explain the signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense.

481. Nurmatov and Utkin were serving sentences in a penal colony with a strict regime, they had known each other for a long time and were on friendly terms. At about 6 o'clock in the morning, when they were drinking alcoholic beverages in the residential area, a quarrel arose between them, during which they insulted each other with obscene language. Nurmatov, having expressed a threat, left and a few minutes later returned with a Finnish knife, which he kept in the residential section.

Continuing to pester Utkin, he demanded that he take his words back, but he turned up and said that he was not afraid of anyone. Then Nurmatov stabbed Utkin with a knife in the left half of his chest, damaging his heart, from which the victim died at the scene.

Nurmatov explained that he had no intention of taking Utkin's life. The regional court found him guilty of committing murder out of hooliganism.

Determine the form of guilt, motive of the crime and qualify the offense.

482. Kharlamov, after drinking alcoholic beverages with Korolyov in the latter's apartment, went to bed. Mother Korolyov demanded that Kharlamov leave the apartment. He began to look for his bag with documents, with which he allegedly came to the apartment. Despite the assurances of the Queen and his mother that he came without a bag, Kharlamov continued to search for her throughout the apartment. Then, believing that Korolyov had appropriated his bag, he took a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him several times, inflicting cut wounds in the chest and left hand, as well as a stab wound to the abdomen. In order to obstruct the provision of assistance to the victim, Kharlamov cut off the telephone wire and then left the apartment. Korolyov died from profuse bleeding at the scene.

The fact that this conflict arose as a result of Kharlamov's unfounded suspicions about the appropriation of his bag by the Korolevs, in which the latter was not involved, does it give grounds for the conclusion that Kharlamov acted from hooligan motives? Does Kharlamov's conscientious delusion about the whereabouts of his bag have legal significance? Show the difference between the bully motive for murder and his other motives.

483. At night, a group of children, including Nuikin, arrived on motorcycles to the children's health camp when the children were already asleep and began to play cards. At this time, the guys from another group that had arrived at the camp began to knock on the window of the house, woke up the cook Feoktistova and her young child, in connection with which she asked the watchman Mazurova to take action against the troublemakers in the camp. Mazurova, in turn, reported this to her husband Shatrov.

Taking a hunting rifle and cartridges, Shatrov left the house to scare the arriving guys. With the intention of removing the guys from the camp, Shatrov shot up. He fired the second shot at the running guys. 7 pellets hit Nuikin's back, damaging the internal organs, from which the victim died at the scene. By the same shot, Koval was slightly injured. Near the wounded Nuikin, Shatrov did not stop, but continued to pursue the fleeing and shoot in the air. I learned about Nuikin's injury only when I returned back from the camp gates. Seeing the victim lying, he began to check his pulse, and then took him in his arms and took him to the medical unit.

In the case, it was established that local children regularly came to the camp, sometimes drunk, and prevented the children from having a rest. There was a case when, out of hooligan motives, they doused the hulls with a foamy mass from a fire extinguisher. In this regard, the leadership of the camp applied to the ROVD, asked to restore order, but no measures were taken. The visits to the camp by local children and their disturbances of public order continued.

To stop these violations, Shatrov loaded several dozen cartridges with blank charges and salt. He explained that he kept all these cartridges on the nightstand in the hallway, and several cartridges loaded with shot were in another room on the table. On the night when, at the request of his wife, he went to disperse the hooligan teenagers, he took the cartridges from the bedside table and was convinced that they were blank or with salt.

When examined in the hallway of Shatrov's apartment, police officers confiscated 33 cartridges. They all turned out to be single. As can be seen from the materials of the forensic investigation, crystals of sodium chloride and traces of lead were found on the walls of 7 spent cartridges seized from Shatrov. But, since the spent cartridges have signs of repeated use, it was not possible to answer the question of whether all the cartridges or part of them were loaded with a lead charge in the latter case.

The regional court qualified Shatrov's actions as a murder committed in a generally dangerous way.

Describe the subjective side of the act performed by Shatrov. Did the court correctly qualify his actions?

484. Kibardin, who worked as the deputy head of the department of internal affairs, was appointed as the head of the operational group during a raid to suppress theft from a state enterprise. In this regard, he received a PM pistol assigned to him. In addition to Kibardin, the group included Lieutenant Gorelov, Sergeant Major Komov and driver Birchuk. The task force was focused on being especially vigilant when checking dark-colored Zhiguli and Moskvich cars.

At dusk, Volin drove up in a dark-colored Moskvich car to the place where the members of the task force were checking the vehicles. Seeing the police officers, who was drunk, Volin braked sharply, then began to turn in the opposite direction.Sergeant Major Birchuk ran next to the car, intending to stop it, tried to remove the key from the ignition through the window, but Volin pushed Birchuk, and he fell. Having decided that the life of Birchuk was in danger, Kibardin ran to this car and fired 2 warning shots, and then, from a distance of 1.5 - 2 m to the left of the car, fired 2 times into the hood, intending to get into the engine and thus drown it. However, the bullets on contact with the hood changed the direction of flight, as a result of which Volin and young Mozolin sitting next to him in the front seat.

From the photographs attached to the forensic ballistic examination report, it can be seen that after contact with the hood, at an angle of 4.5 and 5 degrees, in both cases the bullets changed the direction of flight towards the passenger compartment, where Volin and Mozolin were mortally wounded.

Is Kybardin subject to criminal liability? Can we assume that he was trying to apprehend the criminal? Show the difference between causing death by negligence from murder committed in excess of the measures necessary to arrest the person who committed the crime.

485. Kolbin in the house of his parents, being intoxicated, during a quarrel and fight in the presence of Volodin and Adarova committed the murder of his father, stabbing him in the chest with a knife. After that, he threw away the knife, sat down on a chair and began to cry. Drunk Volodin began to express threats against him. Kolbin demanded that Volodin leave the house, but he did not leave. Then Kolbin threw a glass jar at him, hitting in the head. Since Volodin did not leave, Kolbin pushed him into the entryway, where he took a hammer from the table and struck the victim several times on the head. Volodin, taken to the hospital, died from his injuries.

Is the qualifying feature “killing two or more persons” applicable in this case?

486. Boytsov was found guilty that he, out of jealousy towards his partner Glotova, committed the murder of Dyakov and attempted the murder of Glotova and Khabarov.

As indicated in the verdict, Dyakov and Khabarov came to the apartment of Glotova and her roommate Boytsov (the latter had previously cohabited with Glotova).

After drinking alcohol together, Boytsov left the apartment for a short time, and when he returned, the front door was locked from the inside, and they did not open it to his knock. Believing that the men had left, and the roommate fell asleep, Boytsov, using a ladder, entered the apartment through the balcony, where he saw Dyakov standing with his back to him in the bedroom, buttoning his clothes, and on the bed naked Glotova and Khabarov. Fighters grabbed an ax in the kitchen and stabbed Dyakov and Glotova on the head, inflicting one chopped wound on the skull, which was attributed to serious health damage. Then Boytsov struck Khabarov with an ax, causing slight harm to his health.

Subsequently, Boytsov took vigorous measures to provide medical assistance to Dyakov, but the latter died from injury 2 days later in the hospital. Boytsov explained that the victims did not let him into the apartment, and when he got there through the balcony and, seeing what was happening, he realized that his partner had had sexual intercourse with Khabarov and Dyakov, his head "got confused", then he saw in his hands with an ax, Glotov with a bloody towel pressed to his head, and Dyakov, who was lying in a pool of blood. After that, he went to the hospital and brought doctors. He explained that he did not want to kill the victims.

The cassation appeal of the defense attorney stated that Boytsov had committed the crime in a state of sudden strong emotional excitement caused by the immoral actions of the victims.

Is the statement of the convict's defense lawyer substantiated?

What was the reason for the commission of the crime by Boytsov?

487. Maksimova left her husband, leaving 4 small children, and began to cohabit with another man. Maksimov was very upset about the departure of his wife, repeatedly turned to her with a request that she return to the family.At the next meeting, Maksimova told her ex-husband that she was pregnant by her partner and did not want to return to the family. During the quarrel, Maksimov grabbed a kitchen knife and inflicted several wounds on her, from which she died. Having committed the murder, he confessed to the Department of Internal Affairs and said that he had killed his pregnant wife. An autopsy established that the victim was not pregnant.

Give a description of the subjective side of the deed by Maximov. Qualify his actions.

488. At a disco in a city park, an unfamiliar drunk Antipov approached Mankov, swearing with obscene words, grabbed Maikov by the face for no reason, but at that moment the conflict did not develop further. A few minutes later, Antipov again approached Mankov and his acquaintance Kurynov, who was returning home, and, taking Maikov aside, pushed him, took a knife out of his pocket and said that this time he would be done with him. In response, Mankov instantly kicked Antipov in the head, took the knife away from him and struck Antipov several times in various parts of the body, including 3 penetrating wounds into the chest and abdominal cavities. The victim from the scene was taken to hospital, where he died without regaining consciousness.

During the preliminary investigation and in court, Mankov did not deny that he had committed the murder of Antipov. However, as follows from his testimony, when he saw the knife at Antipov, he was afraid for his life and "did not remember himself." In the case, it was established that 4 months before this incident, Mankov was stabbed in the thigh and chest with damage to the lung, in connection with which he was taken to the hospital in serious condition and operated on.

As witness Kurynov testified, after Maikov had Antipov's knife, everything happened very quickly, within a few seconds. Mankov struck "often, often, like a sewing machine."

Mankov was convicted of murder with particular cruelty.

Can you agree with the verdict of the court?

What was the reason for this crime?

Under what conditions is a murder committed under extenuating circumstances?

489. About 8 pm Levin was in a village club, where Klimov, who was drunk, came and sat down on Levin's lap. He asked Klimov to move away and sit down in an empty seat. Klimov left. After that, Klimov's acquaintances, Tarasov and Shorin, entered the club. They asked Levin about the reason for the conflict with Klimov, Levin told them, and after a while Shorin called him into the foyer. When Levin passed Klimov, he hit him in the face with his fist. Levin ran away and began to ask why he was beating him. Shorin, taking Levin by the neck, took him out of the club. Klimov followed them and, when everyone came out onto the porch, struck him 2 more punches in the face with his fist. In response, Levin hit Klimov. The people who were nearby separated them, but Klimov, not calming down, again went up to Levin and invited him to explain, for which he took them to a deserted place. There he again hit Levin in the face. When he swung again, Levin kicked him in the stomach, from which Klimov died on the spot. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical examination, the blow fell in the stomach and caused a traumatic shock, from which followed death.

Does Levin's actions contain corpus delicti?

Can it be considered that Levin was subjected to unlawful encroachment on the part of Klimov and in the current situation had the right to resort to defense by actively countering the attack? If so, have the limits of necessary defense been exceeded?

490. Aimakayev and Izergin, late in the evening in a state of alcoholic intoxication, pestered citizens in the street, while beating Zubarev, who was unfamiliar to them, with their hands and feet, causing him a multiple fracture of the nasal bones with torn cartilage and multiple bruises of the face and trunk. Zubarev, who suffered from hemophilia (incoagulability of blood), died of acute anemia caused by prolonged and significant nosebleeds.

Give a legal assessment of the action committed by Aimakaev and Izergin. Is there a causal link between the actions of these persons and the death of Zubarev?

491. In the premises of the village club Zaitsev, Khizhnyakov, Krylova, Golov and others drank alcoholic beverages. At the request of Khizhnyakov, Zaitsev went home in search of alcoholic beverages.

Having found a liter jar of liquid in his parents' house, Zaitsev brought it to the club. Having informed those present that the liquid was burning, Zaitsev warned them at the same time that he did not know what it really was and whether it could be used. To find out whether the liquid is suitable for consumption, a nurse Yankova with a secondary medical education was invited into the room, who, unable to determine the nature of the liquid by smell, said that, despite the fact that the liquid was burning, to say something about it composition she can not.

After that, Khizhnyakov tried the contents of the jar and said that it was either honey with alcohol or homemade liqueur, since the liquid was sweet and viscous. Then he began to pour the contents of the can into a glass from which everyone drank. Among them, Zaitsev drank about 70 g. Due to the fact that the jar brought by Zaitsev contained antifreeze, Khizhnyakov, Krylova and Golov, who used it, died of poisoning.

Is Zaitsev subject to criminal liability?

Are there circumstances in this case that exclude criminal liability?

492. Kukshin went to the river bank for grass for pets. Together with him went his 2 young grandchildren and, without the permission of the parents, 4 young children of fellow villagers aged 2.5 to 4 years. At the Kukshin River, in search of fresh grass, together with the children, he entered the wire fence of the high-risk zone (steep bank), took the children at a distance of at least 10 m from the bank and warned them not to approach the river bank. When, having picked some herbs, Kukshin told the children to go home, 4-year-old Alyosha unexpectedly ran after the frog and fell into the river. Kukshin rushed to the rescue, but it was not possible to save the child.

According to the verdict, Kukshin was found guilty of careless deprivation of the boy's life.

In the cassation submission, the prosecutor argued that Kukshin had been convicted of causing death by negligence without reason and that his actions contained signs of corpus delicti, providing for liability for leaving him in danger.

Can you agree with the arguments of the protest?

Is Kukshin subject to criminal liability?

What is the difference between causing death by negligence from an accident?

493. Police officer Kovalchuk entered a restaurant where Pakov, who was celebrating his birthday, was invited to a table. Then the participants of the feast gathered home and went out into the lobby, but the front door of the restaurant was closed. Kovalchuk took out a pistol from his holster, which he had the right to carry by the nature of his service, and began to pretend that he was going to shoot down the lock hanging on the door with a shot. Pakov, who was here, jokingly said that Kovalchuk should shoot him better, and headed in his direction. In response, Kovalchuk pointed a pistol at him and pulled the trigger. There was a shot, Pakov was wounded in the head, from which he soon died. At the preliminary investigation and in the court session, Kovalchuk explained that he did not intend to shoot in the lobby of the restaurant, especially at his friend, but, considering the pistol unloaded, wanted to "click" the trigger for a joke. When he loaded the pistol, he doesn't remember.

From the testimony of eyewitnesses of the incident, it is clear that an atmosphere of fun reigned in the lobby of the restaurant, and the actions of Kovalchuk, aiming at the castle, were perceived by everyone as a joke.

Since the shot by Kovalchuk was fired in the presence of close relatives of the deceased and in a public place, the court concluded that he had committed the murder out of hooliganism and with particular cruelty.

Is the court verdict correct? Analyze what Kovalchuk did.

494.In the evening, the ex-husband of his sister Kireev, who was in a state of strong intoxication, came to the courtyard of Zakirov's house, where he was having dinner with his family. He had a knife in his hands. Previously, he repeatedly came to the Zakirovs, beat his ex-wife, and threatened her with reprisals. Kireev began to use obscene words and threatened Zakirov with reprisals for being detained by police officers on his complaint. Zakirov, trying to avoid a collision with Kireev, invited him to dinner, but he, naked, committed cynical actions against those present, where the children were.

Zakirov called Kireev to order, but the latter rushed at him with a knife. In response, Zakirov hit Kireev on the shoulder with a wooden clothesline strut. The blow was weak, and Kireev, throwing the spacer aside, again began to attack Zakirov with a knife. Then Zakirov grabbed an ax lying on the kitchen table and struck Kireev on the head with it. Kireev fell, and Zakirov struck him a few more blows with this ax, after which he voluntarily appeared at the police and reported what had happened. The victim died from the received injuries.

The actions of Zakirov were assessed by the court as a murder committed with particular cruelty.

By the court of cassation, Zakirov's actions were re-qualified to Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The prosecutor's supervisory submission states that Zakirov inflicted mortal injury on Kireev in order to protect him from an attack that threatened his life, i.e. in a state of necessary defense, the limits of which he exceeded, since after the first blow with an ax on the head, the encroachment on the part of Kireev ended.

Can we agree with the arguments of the prosecutor? Qualify Zakirov's actions?

495. At night Verevkin, being drunk, with a 16-gauge double-barreled hunting rifle came to the house of Kazakov, with whom he had hostile relations. Entering the front garden, Verevkin knocked on the window, and when the light came on in the room, he fired a shot through the glass into the back of the room.

Verevkin explained that he fired a shot at the ceiling, wanted to scare Kazakov because of hostile relations with him. In the case, it was established that Kazakov was not injured in any way, although the shot was fired at close range and the victim, being in the lighted room, was clearly visible to Verevkin.

Qualify Verevkin's actions.

496. Abalin and Kiryukhina applied to the city registry office with a request to register their marriage, and in the evening of the same day they had sexual intercourse. Upon learning that Kiryukhina had already had a sex life before this incident, Abalin refused to register the marriage, telling her that “he did not want to associate fate with a whore” Kiryukhina then returned home and committed suicide.

Show me if there are any signs of the composition of driving to suicide in what happened?

497. Kolosov systematically beat his 17-year-old stepdaughter Markina, beating her with a whip and a waist belt. The last time he struck the victim on the head with a rolling pin, causing her lasting disfigurement of her face and depriving her of sight in one eye. When her mother and stepfather left for work, the victim jumped out of the window of an apartment located on the 5th floor and died.

Identify the object of the attack. Qualify what Kolosov did.

498. Serezhkin together with his acquaintance Bayushev and Shamkin were in the basement of a residential building. At this time, young Leontyev and Makarov in the courtyard, near the basement window, started a game and, despite warnings, threw pieces of clay into the basement window, thus hitting Serezhkin. Out of patience by the actions of Leontyev and Makarov, Serezhkin picked up a stick from the basement floor (a piece of a tree branch 33 cm and 2 cm in diameter) and threw it out the window when Leontyev looked into it to throw a piece of clay again. The butt-end of the stick hit Leontyev's eye. As a result, Leontyev suffered an eye injury, resulting in loss of vision in one eye.

The court found Serezhkin guilty of causing deliberate grievous bodily harm to the victim.In support of the conclusion about his guilt, the court referred to the fact that Serezhkin had committed such a purposeful action, which indicates that he foresaw the onset of grave consequences and wished or deliberately allowed them.

Analyze the subjective side of Serezhkin's actions.

Qualify them for what they have done.

499. Zhiganov and Karamzin, along with other crimes, were found guilty of attempted murder involving robbery, committed by a group of persons out of selfish motives.

The military collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the verdict, excluding from it the instruction on the conviction of these persons on the basis of “mercenary motives”.

Did the cassation court act correctly in this case? How should the actions of the perpetrators be qualified?

Give the concept of the mercenary motive for the murder.

According to what rules should punishment be imposed on Zhiganov and Karamzin based on the qualifications of the attempted murder committed by him on several grounds, part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation?

500. Lebedev was found guilty of killing a helpless person in the following circumstances.

In the evening Lebedev and Smirennikov drank alcoholic beverages in the kitchen of Lebedev's apartment. A quarrel arose between them due to the fact that Smirennikov insulted the wife of the owner of the apartment. The latter, taking advantage of the severe intoxication of the former, tied his hands with a belt and, with the intent of murder, stabbed him in the neck with a knife and then six blows with an awl in the chest and neck. From his wounds, Smirennikov died at the scene.

Are Lebedev's actions qualified correctly?

Is it possible to refer to the helpless state of a person in the sense that is contained in the disposition of paragraph "c" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the finding of the victim in a state of alcoholic intoxication?

Is it not part of the objective side of the crime committed by Lebedev to tie the victim's hands along with stabbing him with a knife and an awl in the chest and neck?

501. S. Vinogradov was found by the court guilty of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm to his father, V. Vinogradov, which inadvertently entailed the death of the victim.

One afternoon between him and his father, who was in his apartment in a state of alcoholic intoxication, there was a quarrel that turned into a fight. During the fight, S. Vinogradov snatched a knife from his father's hands, who insulted and threatened him, and inflicted multiple blows on the latter with his hands and feet, on various parts of the body, causing grievous bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim.

The presidium of the regional court reclassified the deed of the guilty person at Art. 113 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the following grounds.

From the materials of the case it is clear that V. Vinogradov over the past two years has abused alcohol, made scandals at home, insulted all family members, threatened his son with murder, beat his wife - the mother of the convict, who filed statements with the police. Due to the scandals of his father in the family, S. Vinogradov was forced to leave with his wife to live in a hostel, but they were not registered there, and they had to return to their parents' apartment.

The court recognized that the insults and threats of the victim on the day of the incident did not differ from the previous ones, therefore the finding of S. Vinogradov in a state of “justified” passion cannot be considered justified. However, the deed by the convict contains signs of deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm, committed in a state of passion, caused by violence from the victim, as well as a long-term psycho-traumatic situation that arose in connection with the systematic illegal and immoral behavior of the victim.

Give a legal assessment of the decisions of these courts regarding the qualification of the crime committed by S. Vinogradova.

502. Akmalov lost 15 thousand rubles at cards to Mansurov. In order to get rid of the return of the card debt, as the court admitted, he decided to kill the victim and asked Ivakin to help him in this.During a conversation with Mansurov about the repayment of the debt, Akmalov and Ivakin asked him to allow him to repay the debt in parts. However, he refused, offering to pay the debt in full. Then Akmalov killed him with two shots from a gun.

Akmalov was convicted of mercenary murder. Has the motive for the murder of Mansurov, committed under the indicated circumstances, been correctly determined?

503. Zhilev and Shcherbakov, out of hooligan motives, beat Nikolayev, causing him serious harm to his health, dangerous to his life, and left the victim lying on the ground without help. Their actions were qualified by the court under paragraphs. "A", "c" part 3 of article 111 and article 125 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Are the actions of the perpetrators properly qualified? Give a legal analysis of the offenses provided for by the specified articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Can a person be held criminally liable for leaving in danger a person who intentionally inflicted serious harm to the victim's health, dangerous to a person's life?

504. Yanushev was convicted under Part 1 of Article 105, p. "A", "b", "k" Part 2 of Art. 105 and clause "c" of Part 2 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. He was found guilty of the murder of A. Sinitsin, and then, in order to conceal this crime and his parents, V. Sinitsin and I. Sinitsin, who were in a helpless state, as well as of theft of the property of the victims, causing significant damage.

At night Yanushev drank alcoholic beverages with Sinitsin A. in the apartment of the victims and quarreled with him. When he went to the bathroom, Yanushev went there and began to hit him on the body and face, and then drowned him in a bathtub filled with water. Fearing that the parents of the deceased were in the apartment and would report what had happened, Yanushev decided to kill them too. Knowing that the mother and father of the victim are invalids of the 1st group and cannot offer serious resistance, he struck V. Sinitsin on the head with a heavy object and strangled I. Sinitsin with a pillow.

Are the crimes committed by Yanushev correctly qualified?

What are the rules for sentencing the guilty party?

505. Petrova, after drinking alcohol with Kabilov in his house, refused to have sexual intercourse with him. Then he dragged her into the bedroom and offered to commit acts of a sexual nature, while pointing at the knife lying on the table next to the bed. Petrova was afraid to refuse Kabilov and complied with his demand. In the process of sexual assault, she grabbed a knife from the table and stabbed the rapist in the stomach. He grabbed Petrova by the hand and began to select the knife. She did not remember the rest. I came to my senses when I cut off his penis. As a result of acute blood loss, Kabilov died.

Petrova was convicted under Part 1 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Is it correct to qualify Petrova's actions if it has been established in the case that she committed the murder of Kabilov immediately after the bullying and grave insult, and she herself did not remember how she stabbed the victim after being wounded in the stomach?

506. Drunk Baklanov, being in the store, made a scandal, hit the store manager, used obscene words against the store employees and customers, did not react to the remarks of those present. When Litovchenko began to persuade him, he tried to stab him, he accompanied his actions with threats. By joint efforts Baklanov was removed from the store. Seeing on the street approaching Vasin and Sakharov, Baklanov stuck to them, began to insult them with obscene words, stabbed him in the face of Vasin, injuring his nose. In response to these actions, Vasin snatched a penknife from his pocket and stabbed Baklanov in the neck with it, causing serious harm to his health. Qualify the actions of the persons indicated.

507. Karunin, dissatisfied with Osokin's refusal to answer his question, inflicted 2 blows with his fist with considerable force, both at approximately the same place in the center of his chest, after which he immediately took measures to assist the victim as soon as he saw that he fell. Karunin claimed that the blows were inflicted with the aim of inflicting only pain on Osokin.

According to the conclusion of the forensic medical expert, Osokin's death did not come from mechanical damage to the heart, but from its reflex arrest. Osokin's reflex cardiac arrest could have been facilitated by his general inadequate physical development.

In the case, it was established that Karunin did not engage in boxing or other power sports, did not possess special methods of defeat, did not allow violent actions against other persons before, did not enter into conflicts with Osokin, maintained normal official and personal relations with him, was characterized positively.

The court qualified Karunin's actions as deliberate infliction of grievous bodily harm, which inadvertently entailed the death of the victim, committed from hooligan motives.

Is such a court decision justified?

Show the difference between intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm, resulting in the death of the victim by negligence, from murder, as well as from causing death by negligence.

Qualify what Karunin did.

508. During a quarrel, Baburkin, while intoxicated, stabbed Kanischev in the stomach with a knife, causing serious harm to health in the form of a penetrating wound to the abdominal cavity with damage to the mesentery and intestines. The victim died in hospital 24 days later.

From the conclusion of the forensic medical examination it is clear that upon admission to the hospital after the incident, Kanishchev underwent an operation - suturing of the duodenal wounds, alloying of the vessels, and drainage of the abdominal cavity. During the autopsy of his corpse, a napkin was found in the abdominal cavity, which gave a decubitus ulcer on the transverse colon.

Qualify Baburkin's actions.

Is there a causal link between the actions of Baburkin and the ensuing death of Kanishchev? Are the medical professionals who performed the operation of the victim criminalized?

509. Maslov and Nikulin, meeting Kirillova on the street, dragged her into the entrance of a transport company, and, threatening to kill her, threw her to the floor. Having overcome the resistance of the victim, they raped her. They covered the victim's airways with their hands, trying to prevent her from screaming. Finding that Kirillova does not show signs of life, they began to give her artificial respiration, but to no avail. The victim died from mechanical asphyxia.

Determine the object of the criminal assault. Describe the subjective side of the actions of these persons. Qualify the actions of Maslov and Nikulin.

510. Kuravlev met Yanishev in the evening near the bus stop and, on the basis of personal hostile relations, struck him in the chest with his fist. The victim, who was in a state of alcoholic intoxication, could not stay on his feet and fell, hitting his head on the asphalt. The victim died a day later from his injury. According to the conclusion of the forensic medical expert, the victim was diagnosed with a head injury, which could have been received by him during the fall.

Expand the content of the subjective side of the deed by Kuravlev. Qualify his actions.

511. The drunken Karpov and his partner Davydova, after a quarrel with Vasin, who occupied their attic, decided to evict him at night and hand over the vacated premises to other persons. To this end, they armed themselves with axes, went up to the attic where Vasin was sleeping at that time, and, threatening to kill him, pounced on him. Karpov grabbed him by the collar, tried to strangle him, and Davydova began to hit him with an ax. After the first blow to Davydov's hand, she swung again, but Vasin snatched the ax from her and hit the head with the butt of an ax, and then began to strike Karpov with an ax until he fell. Both attackers suffered serious health damage. After the incident, Vasin voluntarily appeared in the department of internal affairs and reported the incident.

Does Vasin's actions contain corpus delicti?

512. Tsybin pushed the boy while playing tennis, and he fell, injuring his nose.Because of this, a quarrel arose between the teenager's father and Tsybin. Troikin approached the noise and asked Tsybin why he was talking rudely with an older man. Tsybin insulted Troikin. The latter, in response, struck him 2 punches in the face and stomach, causing moderate harm to his health.

The court qualified Troikin's actions as deliberate infliction of medium-gravity harm to health out of hooligan motives. Since these actions by Troikin were committed in the courtyard of the house, in the presence of other citizens, the court concluded that he had grossly violated public order.

Can we agree with this qualification of Troikin's actions?

Identify the object of the attack. Expand the content of the subjective side of the actions committed by Troikin.

What was the reason for these actions?

513. Private Kazantsev was convicted by a military court for causing grievous bodily harm when he exceeded the limits of necessary defense. As indicated in the verdict, in response to Kazantsev's refusal to fulfill the unlawful demands of his colleague Atamanov, the latter punched him in the face, grabbed him by the collar of his clothes, continuing to strike. In order to protect Kazantsev, he stabbed Atamanov with a knife he had. As Atamanov continued to attack him, Kazantsev began brandishing his knife and inflicted 3 more wounds on him, which together were life-threatening at the time of the infliction. Only after that did Atamanov stop beating Kazantsev.

Justifying the guilty verdict, the military court indicated that Kazantsev had committed the unlawful actions in the barracks, where there were other servicemen, to whom he could turn for help.

In the case, it was established that Atamanov had repeatedly beaten Kazantsev. A week before the last incident, wishing to subdue his influence, he brutally beat him with a metal poker, beat his head on the battery, after which he threatened to continue such actions in the future.

Can it be considered that Kazantsev acted in a state of necessary defense or exceeded its limits?

Did Kazantsev have the right to use active measures in defense against the Atamanov attack, although he could have turned to other servicemen for help?

514. By the verdict of the court, Sayedov was found guilty of causing deliberate grievous bodily harm in excess of the limits of necessary defense.

As indicated in the verdict, in the toilet room of the hostel drunken Komarov molested Sayedov for no reason, swore at him with obscene words, and then hit him several times with the buckle of a soldier's belt wound around his arm on the head and torso. In response, Sayedov, pulling a penknife from his jacket pocket, stabbed Komarov in the chest, causing a penetrating wound without damaging the internal organs.

The court, concluding that Sayedov had exceeded the limits of necessary defense, proceeded from the fact that the attacker Komarov had suffered grievous bodily harm and that Sayedov himself had not been "seriously" injured.

Can it be considered that Sayedov acted in a state of necessary defense or did he exceed its limits?

What are the signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense?

515. Timonin, in a state of strong alcoholic intoxication, started a quarrel with Mishkin, insulted him and tried to strike. Mishkin wrapped his arms around him, and they both fell to the cement floor. When Timonin fell, he found himself under Mishkin. As a result, he suffered a fractured rib, which, according to the conclusion of the forensic expert, was classified as causing harm to health of moderate severity.

Is Mishkin subject to criminal liability?

516. In order to hunt for a bear, Shirshov drove up to a forest glade in a Niva car to hunt a bear, sown with his favorite bear delicacy - oats. In order not to scare the animal off with the smell of gasoline, Shirshov stopped the car at a certain distance from the hunting place. Until it got dark, Shirshov decided to inspect the field in order to find fresh tracks of the beast. Fifty paces from him, a dark blur, blurred by the twilight, stirred.Shirshov quickly raised his gun and fired. Believing that he had killed the bear, he ran up to him and found the Korolev, a fellow villager, who was also hunting a bear, bleeding to death. Fearing responsibility, Shirshov ran to the car and, returning to the village, did not tell anyone about the incident.

Only on the third day, while driving around the hunting grounds, the forester Maksimov found the Queen unconscious. He lost a lot of blood, a severe wound on his head festered, and a part of his body was paralyzed. Staying for 2 nights on the cold autumn ground resulted in bilateral pneumonia. Korolyov spent more than 4 months undergoing treatment in the hospital, and was recognized as a disabled person of the 2nd group.

During the investigation of the case, it was established that Shirshov's gun turned out to be unregistered, he also did not have permission to hunt a bear.

Qualify Shirshov's actions.

517. In the evening Urusov, together with his friends Postnov and Danilov, was drunk and returning from the stadium. Then they came to Yenikeyev to drink wine. Lazarev was also there. While drinking, Lazarev broke 2 glasses, and Urusov reprimanded him. Postnov recalled Urusov and warned him not to interfere with Lazarev's behavior. After a while Postnov again rudely summoned Urusov outside the gate to talk. There Urusov stabbed him several times in the face and fled.

At about 3 am Postnov and Lazarev came to the courtyard where they lived with the Urus family in a tent, intending to talk to him about the conflict that had taken place in the evening. Seeing them, Urusov hid in the yard. Postnov and Lazarev began knocking on the door and windows of the house, making noise and making threats. Watching them, Urusov picked up a stick in the yard and hit Postnov and Lazarev with it on the head, causing them slight harm to their health.

The court qualified Urusov's actions as hooliganism (Article 213). Show the difference between bullying and health crimes.

Qualify Urusov's actions.

518. Torbanov and Satin were driving a VAZ 21093 car driven by Nemkov. Near the settlement, the driver of the GAZ-53 car, Petrov, turned into the oncoming lane, and then, when he was turning to the right, he saw this car moving at high speed. In an effort to avoid a collision, Nemkov drove into a ditch and damaged his car.

After that, Torbanov and Satin came to the garage of the enterprise, where Petrov arrived, jumped on the step of the car with the words “you almost killed us” and hit him in the face several times with a fist. Then they pulled Petrov out of the car, hit him several more times and took him to the police.

By the verdict of the court, Torbanov and Satin were found guilty of committing hooliganism combined with violence against the victim.

In the cassation appeal, the defense lawyer raised the issue of changing the qualifications of the actions of the convicts, believing that minor harm to the victim's health was caused not from hooligan motives, but due to Petrov's violation of traffic rules, which created an emergency on the road.

Decide on the qualification of the actions of Gorbanov and Satin.

Will the decision be changed if the victim at the hearing declares that he does not want to bring them to criminal responsibility?

519. On February 9, while intoxicated, Poteev struck his wife Poteeva with a fist in the face and cut her lip. On March 12, he punched Poteeva in the area of ​​her right eye, and then stabbed her 2 times in the back, causing slight harm to her health. On April 28, in the courtyard of his house, with a blow of his fist, he knocked Poteeva down and kicked her. On August 20, in the courtyard of his house, he inflicted 8 stab wounds to Poteeva in various parts of the body, causing moderate harm to her health.

Identify the object of the attack. Qualify Poteev's actions.

520. Sarlenko was diagnosed with syphilis while undergoing a medical examination. He was warned in writing about the need to undergo a course of treatment in a venereal clinic.On the second day, after Sarlenko's warning, on the way to the dispensary, he met his acquaintance Pitryaeva, who invited him to a restaurant. After drinking alcoholic drinks in a restaurant, they went to the city garden, where they had sexual intercourse. A few weeks later, Pitryaeva fell ill with syphilis.

Qualify what Sarlenko did.

521. Lyulkin, while working as a translator in one of the African countries, contracted HIV through sexual intercourse. Returning to Russia, he worked as a teacher in a secondary school and, knowing about the disease, continued to be a donor. One of the women in labor, who was injected with Lyulkin's blood, soon died of AIDS, which forced the doctors to look for the source of the infection. When it was finally established that Lyulkin was a virus carrier, they took a signature from him that he knew about his illness and would be criminally liable for infecting other people. However, Lyulkin ignored the warning and continued to have sexual intercourse with casual partners.

Solve the question of Lyulkin's responsibility. Conduct a legal analysis of the elements of the crime committed by him.

522. Salamova, having no special medical education, performed an abortion of Ivantsova in unsanitary conditions in her apartment for a fee. As a result, the latter suffered from inflammation of the peritoneum and, despite the medical measures taken, it was not possible to save her.

Qualify the deeds of Salamova. Will the qualification of this act change if, as a result of the successful treatment, Ivantsova's life was saved?

523. Vladov, driving a car, violated the traffic rules, as a result of which he hit Krysov, causing him harm to his health of average severity. In order to conceal this crime, he took the victim out of town and, having said: "It's not far from the house, you will get there yourself," left him on the winter road, not far from the asphalt plant.

Obukhov, who was driving in a car driven by Vladov, did not help the latter after the collision to put the victim in the back of the car, did not provide him with the necessary assistance and did not inform the appropriate institutions or persons about the need for assistance. Three hours after the road accident, Krysov was found and taken to the hospital with frostbitten hands and feet.

Are there corpus delicti in the acts of these persons? If so, how should the deed be qualified?

524. Shokhova, working as a medical assistant, was summoned to the mother of Nagaeva. Having established that in the latter, the labor process is accompanied by bleeding, she did not inform the leading obstetrician-gynecologist of the region about this, did not examine the patient. Knowing that Nagaeva was not transportable due to the complicated delivery, she did not agree to transport her in the cab of a truck over a distance of 18 km. After the delivery of the woman in labor to the hospital, she did not inform the doctors about the patient's condition, and left for another village. The victim died from uterine bleeding.

Qualify the actions of Shokhova. Will the qualifications of the offense change if it is established that the victim has recovered as a result of intensive treatment?

525. According to the verdict of the regional court L. was convicted under pp. "G", "h" part 2 of article 105 and paragraph "c" of part 4 of article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the fact that he, by prior conspiracy with an unidentified person, committed a robbery and murder of K. in the course of this attack on the victim.

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the verdict on the complaint of the representative of the victim, and the criminal case was sent for a new trial to the same court from the stage of trial by a different composition of the court, recognizing the qualifications of L. ... 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is unnecessary. According to the Judicial Collegium, clause "h" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation provides for murder "associated with robbery" as a qualifying feature, therefore, L.'s deed does not require additional qualifications in combination with robbery.

The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation canceled the cassation ruling, leaving the verdict of the regional court unchanged.

Give a criminal-legal assessment of the decisions of the regional court and the highest cassation and supervisory courts. How should L.'s criminal actions be qualified?

526. The Regional Court convicted Kh. Under Part 3 of Art. 30 on p.p. "G", "h" part 2 of article 105, p. "G", "h", "k" Part 2 of Art. 105, Part 3 of Art. 222 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Kh. Was found guilty of attempted murder of B., associated with banditry, for hire, in order to conceal another crime; in the illegal acquisition, storage and carrying of firearms and ammunition, as part of an organized group.

The Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the verdict and ruled out X's convictions on the episode of D.'s murder on the qualifying grounds of committing a crime for hire, since the court established that D. was an accidental witness to H.'s attempted murder of B. In order to conceal this crime, X .. killed D., therefore the qualification of X's actions committed against D. on the basis of homicide is unnecessary.

Give a legal assessment of the decisions of both courts in this case.

527. By the verdict of the Moscow City Court, VK and G. were convicted of a set of crimes, including the offense under Part 3 of Art. 30, p.p. "A", "d", "e", "g", "i", "l" part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and P. - for committing a set of crimes, including the crime provided for in paragraphs. "G", "d", "e" Part 2 of Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation changed the verdict and excluded the convictions of V.K. and G. under Part 3 of Article 30, paragraph "i" of Part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and P. under paragraph "d" of Part 2 Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since the actions of V.K. and G., in addition, are qualified under Part 3 of Art. 30, item "l" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the actions of clause - under clause "e" of Part 2 of Art. 112 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Did the Judicial Collegium do the right thing by changing the verdict in this part of the qualification of the offense of V.K.G. and P? How is the competition of criminal law norms that differ in their motive and purpose to be overcome?

528. By the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, S. Convicted under clause "g" of part 2 of article 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as under other articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The court found that S. committed the crime under the following circumstances:

Taking advantage of the fact that his minor adopted daughter G., as a member of his family, is materially dependent on him in matters of realizing his rights and interests, he systematically beat her in order to cause physical and mental suffering.

Thus, one day in December 2012 he, accusing G. of deliberately not answering his phone calls, beat her, inflicting three blows to the head with his fists.

In June 2013, he also beat G., hitting her twice in the stomach with his fist, causing physical pain.

On September 16, 2013, he also hit G. on the head with his cell phone, causing physical pain.

September 22, 2013 S. Again struck G. with two punches in the head and one fist in the stomach, causing her physical pain, abrasions and bruises.

In the cassation appeal, the convicted person asked for the cancellation of the verdict in terms of conviction under paragraph "g" of Part 2 of Art. 117 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the termination of the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti, referring to the fact that he had no purpose to inflict physical suffering on the victim. According to him, he beat his stepdaughter for educational purposes.

Are the arguments of the convicted S., which he cited in the cassation appeal, substantiated?

Qualify what S. has done and give a legal analysis of the corpus delicti, if any, of the act he has committed.

529. According to the verdict of the regional court, the previously convicted P. was convicted under paragraphs. "A", "k" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for the murder of K., as well as the murder of Sh. In order to conceal another crime.

In the cassation complaints, the convict and his lawyer insisted that K.'s murder had been committed by P. in a state of passion caused by insults to P.'s mother by the victim, at the time of the stabbing P. was not aware of the social danger of his actions. The convict and his defense lawyer considered P.'s conviction under clause "a" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, since he had no intent to kill two persons. Given the location of P.at the time of the murder in a state of passion, it was believed that his actions should be qualified under Art. 113 and 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

The Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the guilty verdict in the case as legal and justified.

It was established in the case that a quarrel arose between P. and K. while drinking alcohol in the apartment, which ended in murder. For a certain time, they swore, insulted each other. Then K. got drunk and went into another room of the apartment, where P. followed him with a knife and committed the murder of K.. After that, he continued to drink alcohol, and then he took action to cover up the crime. At the same time, during the preliminary investigation, P. described in detail all the circumstances of the murder, from the initial to its final stages, without referring to memory lapses. He correctly assessed what was happening, did not act spontaneously or impulsively, but quite consciously, which is also confirmed by the conclusions of the forensic complex psychological-drug-psychiatric examination.

In such circumstances, the court correctly concluded that the motive for K.'s murder was revenge, which arose during a mutual quarrel. The fact that the victim expressed insults against P. and his mother in itself is not an unconditional reason to believe that what he had done in relation to K. was qualified under Art. 107 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

P.'s guilt in committing the murder of Sh. In order to conceal the murder of K. was confirmed during the trial and was not contested by the convicted person and his lawyer.

In the opinion of the Judicial Collegium, the regional court correctly assessed the actions of P. under clauses "a", "k", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The actions of the perpetrator under clause "a", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation are subject to qualification as the murder of two or more persons, both in the case when he had a single intent to kill two or more victims, and in the case of several murders, committed at different times and not united by a single intent.

Taking into account the foregoing, the Judicial Collegium upheld the verdict against P. unchanged, and the cassation complaints of the convicted person and his defense counsel were not satisfied.

Give a legal assessment of the decisions and conclusions of both courts.

530. A. was convicted under Part 3 of Art. 30, item "a" part 2 of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for attempted murder of two persons - Shch. And S.

In the cassation appeal, the convict, considering the sentence illegal, unfounded and unjust, asked to cancel it. Without denying that the victims had been stabbed in the taxi, he argued that he had no intent to kill them; these actions were forced, aimed at self-defense, which, being in a state of alcoholic intoxication, first insulted and then began to beat him and the girl.

It was established that during the conflict in the minibus cabin, which arose out of personal hostile relations, A. struck the victim Shch. A blow to the head with his fist. Then A. struck the victim Shch. Three stabs in the chest and abdomen with a knife and four stabs in the chest and abdomen by S. with a knife. When the minibus stopped, the victims went out into the street. A. followed them with a knife in his hand and began to pursue the victim Shch., Who fell and lost consciousness. Then A. ran after the victim S., caught up with him and stabbed him twice in the abdomen, as a result of which S. fell and lost consciousness.

Evaluate the convict's assertion that he had no intent to kill the victims, as set out in the appeal, and that at the time of the stabbing of Shch. And S. he was in a state of necessary defense and passion. Give the correct qualifications for the actions committed by A. in relation to the specified persons.

Finished works → Crime against the person

Important! When buying a finished work
tell the Administrator the work code:

214-10-13

approximate number of pages: 18

I agree with the terms of the agreement (agree)

Price: 250 p.

Download the manual for this task (0 kb)

Content

OPTION No. 10

Questions:

1. Murder of two or more persons (clause "a", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Murder committed by a group of persons, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, by an organized group (clause "g", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
2. Violation of the inviolability of private life, home (Art. 137, Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

A task.

Bodrova, on a family contract, grew watermelons on the collective farm. Every morning she found broken watermelons on the melon. At the end of the summer, they decided to set up an ambush to catch night thieves and report them to the police. Bodrova's 15-year-old son Nikolai also asked to be ambushed.

13-year-old Dima and Sergey entered the melons at night, in search of ripe watermelons they began to beat them with a stick. Hearing the noise and footsteps of the offenders, Nikolai and the watchman fired one shot into the air. “It was an order to stand. They had to obey, ”Nikolai later explained. But the teenagers did not understand the order and ran away. Then Nikolai fired a second shot at the fleeing, seriously wounded Sergei, damaging his left kidney, spleen, and liver. In the body of this teenager, 56 pellets were found. From the received injuries, Sergei died in the hospital after 3 days.

Is Nikolai Bodrov subject to criminal liability for murder?

Can it be considered that his actions were aimed at arresting the criminal?

Price: 250 p.

Buy this work

All themes of finished works →

Other finished works on the topic "crime against the person"

Finished works → Crime against the person

Important! When buying a finished work
tell the Administrator the work code:

214-10-13

approximate number of pages: 18

I agree with the terms of the agreement (agree)

Price: 250 p.

Download the manual for this task (0 kb)

Content

OPTION No. 10

Questions:

1. Murder of two or more persons (clause "a", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Murder committed by a group of persons, by a group of persons by prior conspiracy, by an organized group (clause "g", part 2 of article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
2. Violation of the inviolability of private life, home (Art. 137, Art. 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

A task.

Bodrova, on a family contract, grew watermelons on the collective farm. Every morning she found broken watermelons on the melon. At the end of the summer, they decided to set up an ambush to catch night thieves and report them to the police. Bodrova's 15-year-old son Nikolai also asked to be ambushed.

13-year-old Dima and Sergey entered the melons at night, in search of ripe watermelons they began to beat them with a stick. Hearing the noise and footsteps of the offenders, Nikolai and the watchman fired one shot into the air. “It was an order to stand. They had to obey, ”Nikolai later explained. But the teenagers did not understand the order and ran away. Then Nikolai fired a second shot at the fleeing, seriously wounded Sergei, damaging his left kidney, spleen, and liver. In the body of this teenager, 56 pellets were found. From the received injuries, Sergei died in the hospital 3 days later.

Is Nikolay Bodrov subject to criminal responsibility for murder?

Can it be considered that his actions were aimed at arresting the criminal?

Price: 250 p.

Buy this work

All themes of finished works →

Other finished works on the topic "crime against the person"

The modest toiler Nina Alekseevna Guseva celebrated her 80th birthday on February 24. They say about such people: "Where he was born - there he came in handy." All work activities are associated with their native places.

Childhood

Nina Alekseevna was born in 1937 in the village of Tiunovskaya in an ordinary peasant family. As a child of war, she experienced all the bitterness of the Great Patriotic War ... My father did not return from the front - he disappeared without a trace, the entire economy fell on the shoulders of Apollinaria Yakovlevna's mother. Three children hardly saw her, she worked all the time, and they themselves began to work from an early age. Nina Alekseevna recalls how difficult it was for them, the girls and boys of that time, to shoulder the burden of hard physical labor: “Until the age of seven I helped at home with the housework, and then on the collective farm. I need to harness the horse, but the size is small: I can't get the yoke. They plowed, harrowed on horses.They often left at night, if far away. While it was light, they worked, then they unharnessed the horses and spent the night in a hut. And in the morning we got up before the sun to harness again, and again to work. I was hungry all the time. All worked barefoot. And they didn’t get sick. They also carried manure to the field, silage to farms. We worked until school, and then ran to the bathhouse, and to study. " And Nina Alekseevna went to school only from the age of eight, as she had to be with her younger sister. It was hard without a man in the house: they prepared firewood, weaved a fence, and there was also a cow, sheep, a pig on the farm, they had to prepare hay - and all this after the collective farm work. Despite being busy and tired, Nina Alekseevna studied at school "4" and "5", and then on a Komsomol ticket she went to work on the Timiryazev collective farm - to raise the Non-Black Earth Region. First she worked in the field, then two years in the pigsty.

I was sick for the pets

Since 1960 he was transferred to a farm. Labor was not mechanized. Ten milkmaids did everything by hand: they milked three times a day, carried water, procured and carried feed for the animals, removed the manure, grazed. Responsibilities were distributed: one, for example, grazes, and the rest carry food. There was one veterinarian for the whole Shebenga, so it happened that he left vaccinations for cows: they did it themselves too. And at first there was no light either ... As the senior milkmaid Nina Alekseevna came before everyone else: the milk had to be weighed, the accompanying letters had to be written. It's a kilometer away from work, and in winter it will blow - and the road is not visible. So we got there, we had to go out after dark. And they returned the same way. And after all, there is also his own farm, the children at home. Nina Alekseevna recalls: “We need to make hay for ourselves in the summer. In the morning, before milking, we run off to sweep in order to sweep away in the evening. And in the evening the clouds will come running - and they did not have time, again they need to dry. " When they built a new farm, we switched to machines, it became a little easier, but if they turned off as a result of a short circuit, and this happened quite often, then all 25 heads that fell on each milkmaid were milked by hand. Nina Alekseevna worked at the farm for 28 years. It could have been longer, but my hands began to ache. On the collective farm, she was respected for her hard work, conscientious attitude to work. Any business was arguing in her hands. For her work, she was constantly a leader in production, was encouraged by prizes, certificates of honor, participated in meetings of leaders in agriculture. For her work, first-class machine milking foreman Nina Alekseevna Guseva was awarded the medal "For the development of the Non-Black Earth Region". She has the honorary badges "Drummer of the 11th Five-Year Plan," Winner of Socialist Competition ", and the" Veteran of Labor "medal.

Family life

In 1958 she married Mikhail Ivanovich Gusev. After school, he first worked as a tractor driver on a skidder at the Semigorodny station in the Kharovsky district, and then as an assistant driver. After the army, he was called to work as a machinist, but at the request of his father, who undermined his health in captivity, he returned to his native village of Ugolnaya Gora. He worked in the MTS, and then on the collective farm on various types of equipment: he harvested timber, built farms, houses, plowed, harvested bread. Before retirement, he worked as a mechanic on a new farm.

At first, the family lived in her husband's village, later they built a house in Tiunovskaya. During the day they worked on the collective farm, and at night they built, so we had to hire strangers to help. They kept a large farm. A cow - up to 70 years old.

The couple raised four children: Tatiana (born 1959), Sergei (born 1960), Lyubov (born 1964) and Valentina (born 1968). My grandmother helped with the kids, she was found out while the parents worked - there were no kindergartens at that time.

Together with Mikhail Ivanovich, they lived 53 years of a happy family life, they never quarreled or swore. He passed away six years ago. Nina Alekseevna still lives in the village of Tiunovskaya, only for the winter she comes to visit her son in Tarnoga. Tatiana lives in Arkhangelsk, Lyubov lives in Vologda, and Valentina lives in Kostroma. “I’m never alone in the village,” says Nina Alekseevna. Ten grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren often visit their beloved grandmother.

In her youth, she was also fond of needlework: she knitted suspensions, sewed, embroidered - there was little time, but sewing was a necessity: there was no way to buy clothes. After working on the farm, the tired hands are already obeying, but Nina Alekseevna is trying to do something feasible around the house. From early spring to late autumn she spends time in the garden: she grows everything herself. I am sure that you cannot sit idle in the village, you have to work. To work hard.

Margarita YUROVA.

Photo by the author.