Compiled from: The Paper, China Youth Net
 
Case review
Qiu Moumei and Zhang had been married for ten years, and they had a son in 2010. The son was born with congenital deformity of the right ear accompanied by hearing impairment, and underwent three surgeries to reconstruct the right ear using autologous rib cartilage. Additionally, Qiu Moumei and her husband often quarreled and fought over household matters.

 
 

A neighbor testified that the quarrels between Qiu Moumei and her husband even disturbed the rest of nearby residents, "Everyone knows their relationship is bad. Qiu Moumei once said she wanted a divorce very much, but endured it because she felt sorry for the child. Her child has a physical defect and needs a large sum of money for surgery. This woman is kind and pitiful, with no one providing living expenses, often short of money, and frequently goes out to find work to supplement the family income."
 
The court found that on the evening of July 2, 2019, the two repeatedly argued and quarreled over divorce issues, agreeing to go through divorce procedures the next day. Around 1 a.m. on July 3, Zhang came to the residential area where Qiu and her son lived, attempting to enter by calling, knocking on the door, and throwing small stones at the window, but Qiu did not open the door or respond. After Qiu called the police, the responding officers were unable to locate the scene and advised Zhang over the phone. Qiu also called Zhang's mother for help, but to no avail. She then took a single-edged fruit knife from the kitchen, hid it in her hand, and opened the door. Upon entering, Zhang immediately verbally abused and beat Qiu, forcing her into the bedroom and slapping her.
 
After being hit, Qiu did not immediately resist with the knife but instead hid it by the bedside. Seeing his mother being beaten, the son struck Zhang on the back with a toy Golden Cudgel. Zhang then pinned the son to the bed with one hand, knelt on his legs, and punched the son's buttocks with his right fist. To prevent her son's ear from being injured, Qiu intervened with her bare hands. When her intervention failed, she picked up the fruit knife from the bedside and stabbed Zhang three times in the back, with two of the stabs penetrating the chest cavity.
 
After Zhang was injured, Qiu immediately rode an electric scooter to take him to the Yangluo campus of Hubei Third People's Hospital for treatment. Zhang was hospitalized for 12 days before being discharged. Forensic evaluation determined that Zhang's injuries were classified as severe second-degree.

 
 

On August 21, 2019, Qiu was released on bail pending trial. On August 27, Qiu and Zhang completed their divorce procedures. Qiu relinquished all her property rights as compensation to Zhang, and Zhang issued a letter of forgiveness, requesting that Qiu be exempted from criminal punishment.
 
On November 11, 2019, the Xinzhou District People's Court of Wuhan charged Qiu with intentional injury and initiated a public prosecution. The prosecution argued that Qiu's self-defense clearly exceeded the necessary limits, causing significant harm, and recommended a sentence of two years' imprisonment with a three-year probation.
 
In court, Qiu voluntarily pleaded guilty but argued that she stabbed Zhang to prevent harm to her child, requesting exemption from criminal punishment.
 
 
[1] Relevant laws and regulations
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
[2] Article 20: Justifiable Defense
[3] An act that is taken to stop an ongoing unlawful infringement in order to protect the state, public interests, or the personal, property, or other rights of oneself or others, and that causes harm to the infringer, constitutes justifiable defense and shall not bear criminal liability. If justifiable defense clearly exceeds the necessary limits and causes major harm, criminal liability shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted. Defense actions taken against ongoing violent crimes such as assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping, or other serious violent offenses that endanger personal safety, resulting in injury or death to the infringer, do not constitute excessive defense and shall not bear criminal liability.
 
[4] Article 234: Intentional Infliction of Injury
[5] Anyone who intentionally inflicts injury on another person's body shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, or public surveillance. If the crime in the preceding paragraph causes serious injury to another person, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years; if it causes death or causes serious injury resulting in severe disability through particularly cruel means, the offender shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death. Where this Law provides otherwise, such provisions shall apply.
 
[6] Opinions of the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice on Lawfully Handling Criminal Cases of Domestic Violence
第19条
Accurately determine legitimate defense against domestic violence. In order to protect the personal rights of oneself or others from unlawful infringement, actions taken to stop ongoing domestic violence, as long as they meet the conditions stipulated in the criminal law, shall be legally recognized as legitimate defense and bear no criminal liability. If the defensive act causes serious injury or death to the perpetrator and clearly exceeds the necessary limit, it constitutes excessive defense and shall bear criminal liability, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.
Determining whether a defensive act "clearly exceeds the necessary limit" shall be based on the need to sufficiently stop the domestic violence and protect the defender from unlawful infringement. A comprehensive judgment shall be made considering the severity of the domestic violence being perpetrated by the abuser, the cruelty of the means, the environment in which the defender is situated, the degree of danger faced, the measures taken to stop the violence, the extent of serious harm caused to the abuser, and the severity of past domestic violence.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
In this case, Qiu Moumei, due to marital disputes, was harassed and disturbed by her husband Zhang until the early morning hours during their separation, and both she and her son were beaten by Zhang. To prevent damage to her son's reconstructed auricle, which had been operated on less than a month ago, Qiu Moumei, after failing to stop Zhang with her bare hands, stabbed him three times in the back with a single-edged fruit knife. This act meets the conditions of legitimate defense in terms of cause, timing, intent, and target, and both the prosecution and defense have no objection to this.
 
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether Qiu Moumei's legitimate defense clearly exceeded the necessary limit and caused significant harm.
 
In response, the court comprehensively evaluated: Determining whether a defensive act "clearly exceeds the necessary limit" shall be based on the need to sufficiently stop the domestic violence and protect the defender from unlawful infringement. A comprehensive judgment shall be made considering the environment in which the defender is situated, the degree of danger faced, the measures taken to stop the violence, the severity of the domestic violence being perpetrated by the abuser, the extent of serious harm caused to the abuser, and the history of past domestic violence.
 
First, prior to the incident, Qiu Moumei was repeatedly harassed by Zhang due to marital conflicts, with the harassment continuing until the early hours. After calling the police for help, the responding officers failed to arrive at the scene. Following unsuccessful attempts by the police to persuade Zhang over the phone and Qiu's plea for help from Zhang's mother, she had no choice but to open the door to face the enraged Zhang. Given that both Qiu and her son had previously been physically and verbally abused by the hot-tempered Zhang, Qiu prepared a fruit knife for self-defense after exhausting all means of seeking help, feeling isolated, fearful, and at a significant disadvantage in strength. Her advance preparation and tool readiness were justified and reasonable.
 
Second, after being verbally abused and slapped by Zhang, Qiu, though hiding a knife, did not immediately resist with it but instead put the knife down and concealed it under the head of the bed, reflecting her continued restraint and forbearance at that moment. When Zhang pinned her son down on the bed and beat him, although the blows were only on the buttocks, an angry adult's violent suppression and harm to a 9-year-old child posed a clear risk of injuring the ribs from which cartilage had been taken and severely damaging the reconstructed ear. Considering her son's congenital right ear deformity, the prior use of autologous rib cartilage for ear reconstruction, and the fact that he had been discharged from the hospital less than a month after his third surgery, Qiu feared damage to his operated ear. After failing to stop the assault with her bare hands, she urgently stabbed Zhang with the knife to prevent further harm to her son. This act, aimed at avoiding severe consequences, should be deemed justifiable self-defense.
 
The court held that in determining whether Qiu's defensive actions clearly exceeded necessary limits, full consideration should be given to a mother's urgent desire to protect her son from harm, as well as her normal stress response under tense and anxious circumstances and her son's special physical condition. Once Zhang stopped beating her son after being injured, Qiu immediately ceased stabbing him. At this point, one cannot, from the perspective of a calm bystander after the fact, overly demand "proportionality of means" from the defender, requiring her to make objective, calm, and rational responses under isolated and highly stressful conditions to precisely stop the unlawful infringement. Nor should one fall into the trap of "result-oriented thinking," making post-hoc judgments based on all objective facts, especially not using the defensive outcome of serious injury to retroactively determine whether the defense was excessive. Instead, a comprehensive assessment should be made by putting oneself in the defender's shoes, considering the cause of the incident, the potential consequences of the unlawful infringement, and the specific circumstances at the time, with appropriate considerations favoring the defender.
 
In summary, the court determined that Qiu Moumei's act of justifiable defense did not exceed the necessary limits and she bears no criminal liability. On June 24, 2020, the People's Court of Xinzhou District, Wuhan City, acquitted Qiu Moumei.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
In this case, the court's judgment took into account not only whether Qiu Moumei's actions met the legal limits of justifiable defense in principle, but also the psychological reactions under the special circumstances at the time. Although Qiu Moumei's act of stabbing Zhang with a knife may at first glance appear to be excessive defense,
However, it must be considered that after enduring long-term abuse, Qiu Moumei's psychological state was no longer the same as that of an ordinary person. Moreover, when Zhang turned to beat her son, who had just undergone surgery, Qiu Moumei was inevitably provoked. As a mother, she did not want her son to be injured again at such a vulnerable moment. Therefore, her act of "stabbing her husband with a knife" was entirely out of maternal protection for her son and a desperate measure taken in an emergency. In a situation where the physical strength of a woman and a man is completely unequal, Qiu Moumei had no choice but to resort to an extreme method to survive. Thus, whether the defense was excessive should not be judged by ordinary standards.
 
We see that such a wife endured her husband's brutal beatings with great tolerance, yet in a moment of desperation to protect her son who had just undergone surgery, she stabbed and injured her husband. While we sympathize with the wife's misfortune, we also marvel at the greatness of this maternal love.