岳寶華交通肇事逃逸案評(píng)析
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-06-27 09:28
【摘要】：岳寶華案是一起涉嫌觸犯交通肇事罪的道路交通安全事故。岳寶華案定性問題、間接證據(jù)的使用問題以及當(dāng)事人責(zé)任承擔(dān)問題是解決此案的關(guān)鍵。岳寶華案當(dāng)屬交通責(zé)任事故、交通意外事故還是交通肇事逃逸是事故得以正確處理的關(guān)鍵。當(dāng)事人岳寶華的陳述是此案唯一的直接證據(jù)。由于此案的證人都非直接目擊證人，故九名證人的證言屬間接證據(jù)。間接證據(jù)還包括三個(gè)檢驗(yàn)報(bào)告、三個(gè)鑒定文書。案發(fā)后偵查部門組織的偵查實(shí)驗(yàn)的結(jié)果的證據(jù)資格問題，有應(yīng)作為間接證據(jù)在此案使用和應(yīng)排除出此案證據(jù)范圍兩種截然不同的觀點(diǎn)。對(duì)此案證據(jù)的綜合證明力也有兩種觀點(diǎn)：一是直接證據(jù)與間接證據(jù)相互印證說；二是直接證據(jù)與間接證據(jù)綜合證明力不夠說。相關(guān)部門、當(dāng)事人及當(dāng)事人的近親屬對(duì)肇事人岳寶華的責(zé)任承擔(dān)問題爭(zhēng)議也大，主要存在主要責(zé)任說、全部責(zé)任說、負(fù)不超過10%的賠償責(zé)任說以及無責(zé)任說四種觀點(diǎn)。我國(guó)交通立法意義上的交通肇事逃逸的主觀過錯(cuò)必須是故意，客觀上為了逃避救助義務(wù)和法律責(zé)任實(shí)施了逃離事故現(xiàn)場(chǎng)的行為。肇事人岳寶華在明知發(fā)生了交通事故后，以未查看到被撞擊物體并懷疑是意欲搶劫之人設(shè)置的障礙物為由駛離事故現(xiàn)場(chǎng)，并一直未報(bào)案，，其行為當(dāng)屬交通肇事逃逸。此案的偵查實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果因具有證據(jù)的所有特征，審查后可直接作為間接證據(jù)使用。岳寶華案已有的直接證據(jù)與間接證據(jù)能排他性地證明嫌疑人岳寶華的肇事行為以及卞曉曉對(duì)此次事故過錯(cuò)和過錯(cuò)程度,岳寶華負(fù)事故的主要責(zé)任，卞曉曉負(fù)事故的次要責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:Yuebaohua case is a road traffic safety accident suspected of committing traffic accident. The qualitative problem of Yuebaohua case, the use of indirect evidence and the responsibility of the parties are the key to solve the case. Yuebaohua case is a traffic responsibility accident, and traffic accident or hit-and-run is the key to deal with the accident correctly. Yue Baohua's statement is the only direct evidence in the case. Since none of the witnesses in the case were direct witnesses, the testimony of nine witnesses was indirect evidence. Indirect evidence also includes three test reports and three identification documents. There are two different viewpoints that should be used as indirect evidence in this case and the scope of evidence in this case should be excluded from the evidence qualification of the results of the investigation experiment organized by the investigation department after the case. There are also two viewpoints on the comprehensive proof power of the evidence in this case: one is that the direct evidence and the indirect evidence confirm each other; the other is that the comprehensive proof power of the direct evidence and the indirect evidence is not enough. The relevant departments, the parties and their close relatives are also controversial over the responsibility of Yue Baohua, the perpetrator. There are four main points of view: the theory of full liability, the theory of liability of not more than 10%, and the theory of no liability. The subjective fault of traffic hit-and-run in the sense of traffic legislation in our country must be intentional. Objectively, in order to evade the obligation of rescue and legal responsibility, the behavior of escaping from the scene of the accident has been carried out. After knowing that a traffic accident had occurred, Yue Baohua, the perpetrator, left the scene of the accident on the grounds that he had not seen the object hit and suspected that it was an obstacle set up by the person who wanted to rob him, and had not reported it, and his behavior should be a traffic hit-and-run. The results of the investigation experiment in this case can be used as indirect evidence directly after examination because of all the characteristics of the evidence. The existing direct evidence and indirect evidence in Yuebaohua case can prove the suspect Yuebaohua's accident behavior and Bian Xiaoxiao's fault and fault degree, Yue Baohua bears the main responsibility of the accident, and Bian Xiaoxiao bears the secondary responsibility of the accident.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3;D920.5
本文編號(hào)：2506678
[Abstract]:Yuebaohua case is a road traffic safety accident suspected of committing traffic accident. The qualitative problem of Yuebaohua case, the use of indirect evidence and the responsibility of the parties are the key to solve the case. Yuebaohua case is a traffic responsibility accident, and traffic accident or hit-and-run is the key to deal with the accident correctly. Yue Baohua's statement is the only direct evidence in the case. Since none of the witnesses in the case were direct witnesses, the testimony of nine witnesses was indirect evidence. Indirect evidence also includes three test reports and three identification documents. There are two different viewpoints that should be used as indirect evidence in this case and the scope of evidence in this case should be excluded from the evidence qualification of the results of the investigation experiment organized by the investigation department after the case. There are also two viewpoints on the comprehensive proof power of the evidence in this case: one is that the direct evidence and the indirect evidence confirm each other; the other is that the comprehensive proof power of the direct evidence and the indirect evidence is not enough. The relevant departments, the parties and their close relatives are also controversial over the responsibility of Yue Baohua, the perpetrator. There are four main points of view: the theory of full liability, the theory of liability of not more than 10%, and the theory of no liability. The subjective fault of traffic hit-and-run in the sense of traffic legislation in our country must be intentional. Objectively, in order to evade the obligation of rescue and legal responsibility, the behavior of escaping from the scene of the accident has been carried out. After knowing that a traffic accident had occurred, Yue Baohua, the perpetrator, left the scene of the accident on the grounds that he had not seen the object hit and suspected that it was an obstacle set up by the person who wanted to rob him, and had not reported it, and his behavior should be a traffic hit-and-run. The results of the investigation experiment in this case can be used as indirect evidence directly after examination because of all the characteristics of the evidence. The existing direct evidence and indirect evidence in Yuebaohua case can prove the suspect Yuebaohua's accident behavior and Bian Xiaoxiao's fault and fault degree, Yue Baohua bears the main responsibility of the accident, and Bian Xiaoxiao bears the secondary responsibility of the accident.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D924.3;D920.5
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 楊立新;;我國(guó)道路交通事故責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則研究[J];法學(xué);2008年10期
2 丁建華;;淺析交通肇事逃逸的認(rèn)定[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年07期
3 張敏;;試論我國(guó)道路交通事故損害賠償責(zé)任之歸責(zé)原則[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年11期
4 姜振穎;;機(jī)動(dòng)車交通事故民事責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則探究[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年33期
5 湯三紅;;交通肇事逃逸及其認(rèn)定[J];中國(guó)人民公安大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期
6 柳鵬;;淺談如何運(yùn)用間接證據(jù)證明案件事實(shí)[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年35期
7 張明楷;;交通肇事的刑事責(zé)任認(rèn)定[J];人民檢察;2008年02期
8 惠強(qiáng);;我國(guó)道路交通事故歸責(zé)原則完善之探討[J];商品與質(zhì)量;2010年S5期
9 周平;刑事證據(jù)閉合性新探[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1994年05期
10 阮堂輝;;“證據(jù)鎖鏈”的困境及其出路破解——論間接證據(jù)在我國(guó)刑事訴訟中的獨(dú)立定案功能[J];中國(guó)刑事法雜志;2006年04期
本文編號(hào)：2506678
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/falilunwen/2506678.html
教材專著
