Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96734
|
| Title: | 鑑定報告與傳聞例外─最高法院近年相關裁判之評釋 |
| Other Titles: | The Admissibility of Laboratory Reports in Criminal Trials: Review of Relevant Cases by the Supreme Court in Recent Years |
| Authors: | 李佳玟
Lee, Chia-Wen |
| Keywords: | 鑑定報告;證據能力;對質詰問權;傳聞法則;傳聞例外;直接審理原則;武器平等;改良式的當事人進行主義;檢察一體 |
| Date: | 2008-02 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-20 10:44:26 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 針對鑑定報告的證據能力，我國最高法院向來遵循刑事訴訟法第一五九條的修法意旨，認定同法第二○六條屬於第一五九條第一項所承認的傳聞例外，因此法官與檢察官囑託選任鑑定而作成的報告原則上具有證據能力。至於司法警察所委託的鑑定報告，最高法院以檢察一體的法理，認為該鑑定報告因已受檢察長的概括委託亦有證據能力。對照之下，告訴人或被告委託鑑定的鑑定報告則因不符合刑事訴訟法的規定，被排除在審判庭之外。本文認為：最高法院的處理方式形式上雖符合現行法的規定，但實質上其對鑑定報告的預設卻欠缺事實支持，牴觸直接審理原則，與近年來改良式當事人進行主義的精神不符，更侵害刑事被告的對質詰問權。本文將從保障被告之對質詰問權，且兼顧訴訟經濟的角度，對鑑定報告之處理方式提供意見。
With respect to the admissibility of laboratory reports in criminal trials, the Supreme Court in Taiwan generally follows the legislative notes of the Criminal Procedural Code, and permits the lower courts to use crime laboratory reports provided by the prosecutors and the trial court itself, in lieu of live witness testimony, to prove essential elements of a criminal case. The defendant cannot cross-examine forensic expert unless the trial court approves. By contrast, the laboratory report provided by the defendant is inadmissible, simply because the defendant is not authorized by the law to appoint a forensic expert. This article argues that crime laboratory reports in general lack the reliability that the legislators and the Supreme Court assume that they have. Cross-examining a forensic expert in a trial is always a better way to test the reliability of forensic test results. In addition, using crime laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, contradicts the principle of direct trial, and is inconsistent with the principle of equality of arms, promoted by our new modified adversarial system. Most of all, using crime laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, is a violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation. Therefore, this article suggests that the Supreme Court should change its rulings, and more fundamentally, the legislators should modify relevant regulations, so that the defendant may have a fair opportunity to confront any witness against her/him, including the forensic experts, and provide her/his own expert in trial to testify for her/him. Only when the defendant agrees to use the laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, can the forensic expert be exempted from the obligation of testifying in court. |
| Relation: | 法學評論, 101, 193-24 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [政大法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101(193-254).pdf | | 864Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1626 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
