Give a legal assessment of the actions of Kovalchuk.
2. 17-year-old Rakov entered his mother’s room late in the evening and asked for money to buy sneakers, indicating that the old shoes were leaky and he was ashamed to go out. The mother rudely refused her son. Because of this, a quarrel broke out, during which the mother and son insulted each other, after which the mother struck her son twice in the face with her hand. As Rakov explained during the investigation, he was offended by the actions of his mother, and he, not remembering himself, grabbed her by the neck with both hands, threw her to the floor, and began to squeeze. Seeing the foam from the mouth of the victim, he got scared and let her go. The victim died from mechanical asphyxia. Rakov was convicted under Part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Do you agree with the qualifications?
3. Pushkarev N. and Pushkareva K. lived together for 10 years, during which the husband abused alcoholic beverages, constantly insulted and beat his wife and children. On January 10, 2010, the 15-year-old daughter of the Pushkarevs told her mother that five years ago, her father, while intoxicated, had raped her. After that, Pushkareva K. took a kitchen knife and struck her sleeping husband 10 blows to the head and chest. Pushkarev N. died from the inflicted injuries. Pushkareva K. explained to the investigator that she did not remember how she hit her husband, because she was in a state of great excitement.
Qualify the actions of Pushkareva K.
4 . Spouses Alekseev throughout their life together and especially in the last 6 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 again beat his wife, threatened to kill him, and then stated that the grandson was actually his son from his daughter-in-law. Hearing this, Alekseeva grabbed a bucket and began to strike her husband with it, causing serious 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 was found to have injuries in the form of abrasions and bruises on her face, torso, 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 ran out into the street, and after a while returned to the house. The husband again began to quarrel with her, and then said “such” about his grandson, after which she grabbed a bucket standing nearby and, not remembering herself, began to beat her husband sitting on the porch on the head with it.
Qualifying the deed as a murder without mitigating circumstances, the court in the verdict indicated 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 lead her into a state of sudden strong mental agitation.”
Is it possible to agree with the arguments of the court? What actions can cause strong emotional excitement? Analyze the crime committed by Alekseeva.
6. Malafeev, being in a de facto marital relationship with Tarasova, systematically beat her and her young child, in connection with which she was forced to run away to her parents. Each time, Malafeev came for Tarasova, broke open the doors of his parents’ apartment, smashed the windows and took her away by force. Tarasova’s father Tarasov A. repeatedly appealed to the police with a request to force Malafeev to stop bullying his daughter and his family, but no action was 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 in a state of intoxication, began to demand that Tarasova come out to them, threatening otherwise to use a sawn-off shotgun. Having been refused, Malafeev fired a shot, knocked out glass in the window and tried to enter the house. Then Tarasov ran out into the street and hit Malafeev on the head with a wooden block, causing him to fall, having managed to pass the sawn-off shotgun to Chemodanov. Waving a 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 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 murdering 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?
Can it be considered that he exceeded the limits of necessary defense? Uncover signs of exceeding the limits of necessary defense.
7. At night, a group of children, including Nuikin, arrived on motorcycles at 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 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 measures against the disturbers of peace in the camp. Mazurova, in turn, informed her husband Shatrov about this.
Taking a hunting rifle and cartridges, Shatrov left the house to frighten the arriving guys. With the intention of removing the guys from the territory of the camp, Shatrov fired into the air. The second shot he fired at the running guys. 7 shots hit Nuikin in the back, damaging the internal organs, from which the victim died at the scene. The same shot caused slight harm to Koval’s health. Near the wounded Nuikin, Shatrov did not stop, but continued to pursue the fleeing and fire into the air. He learned about Nuikin’s wound only when he returned back from the gates of the camp. Seeing the victim lying down, he began to check his pulse, and then took him in his arms and carried him to the medical unit.
According to the case, it was established that local children systematically came to the camp, sometimes in a state of intoxication, and prevented the children from resting. 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 camp management appealed to the police department, asked to restore order, but no action was taken. Visits to the camp by local children and their violations 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 a bedside table in the hallway, and several cartridges loaded with shot were in another room on a 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 viewed in the hallway of Shatrov’s apartment, police officers seized 33 rounds of ammunition. All of them were single. As can be seen from the materials of the forensic investigation, on the walls of 7 spent cartridges seized from Shatrov, salt crystals and traces of lead were found. But, since the spent cartridge cases show signs of repeated use, it was not possible to answer the question of whether all or part of their cartridges were equipped with a lead charge in the latter case.
The regional court qualified Shatrov’s actions as a murder committed in a generally dangerous way.