刑事訴訟舉證責任於實務運作上之實踐

Tunghai University Institutional Repository > 法律學院 > 法律學系所 > 國科會研究報告 > Item 310901/9260

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://140.128.103.80:8080/handle/310901/9260

Title:	刑事訴訟舉證責任於實務運作上之實踐
Other Titles:	A Study on the Enforcement of the Burden of Proof in the Criminal Procedural
Authors:	陳運財 Chen, Yun-Tsai
Contributors:	行政院國家科學委員會東海大學法律學系
Keywords:	無罪推定;舉證責任;職權調查;證明程度;正當防衛抗辯;心神喪失抗辯 Right to Be Presumed Innocent , Burden of Proof , Adversary System,Persuasive Burden, Burden of Adducing Evidence, Insanity, Self-defense
Date:	2008
Issue Date:	2011-06-16T06:08:51Z (UTC)
Abstract:	於2002 年新修正的刑事訴訟法第一六一條第一項有關檢察官舉證責任以及第一六三條有關當事人進行調查證據之兩項條文，可謂是整個刑事審判制度的核心，猶如一棟建築物的樑與柱。尤其，舉證責任的規範一方面不僅可釐清刑事審判程序檢察官與法官之間的角色扮演，另一方面更屬維護被告受無罪推定保障的重要屏障，攸關整個刑事訴訟構造的建立及證據調查的操作，其重要性不言可喻。然而，近兩年多來學說的論述及實務的重心，主要仍集中在違法證據排除法則、傳聞法則及交互詰問等課題，相對於這些明星光環，舉證責任這個概念似乎卻顯得孤寂零落，並未獲得應有的重視及關注。基於無罪推定原則，不論刑事訴訟之構造係採職權進行抑或當事人進行的模式，審判期日調查證據結束，被告犯罪事實無法證明者，應為被告無罪之判決，本屬當然之理。如今刑事訴訟法為進一步追求公平審判而修正訴訟構造的結果，更不得陷被告於比以往更不利的地位，亦即被告不應因其訴訟行為拙劣，舉證失敗而受到處罰。惟審判實務的運作上，關於舉證責任的內涵、證明程度以及其與法院職權調查之間界限如何劃分等，在認知及操作上仍見紛歧、混淆而尚無定論。特別是，有無阻卻犯罪事由之證明（例如正當防衛、心神喪失抗辯的處理），以及有無證據能力的判斷（例如被告自白任意性的爭議、或是否該當於傳聞法則之例外情形等），實務上往往存有南猿北轍的看法。最高法院刑事各庭之間的判斷，亦不例外。可以想見的，現時對於檢察官舉證責任的內涵及其與法院職權調查間的界限等重要課題，見解上的落差，將直接造成整個下級事實審在調查證據程序運作上可能出現難以適從的窘境，且對實務運作的影響效力正在持續發酵。由於舉證責任涉及實體法上之犯罪事實、訴訟法上之程序事實、證據調查程序、方式以及與法院職權調查間之界限等理論與實踐上的諸多問題，面向多樣複雜，需要做長期持續、全面性且有體系的、問題導向的觀察研究。因此，本計畫以三年為期，將從相關各個層面進行研究觀察與分析檢討，循序(1)第一年主要進度將放在總論上，探討被告犯罪事實的證明問題。(2)第二年則探討有關各論上個別證據在證據能力及訴訟法上事實的證明問題。(3)第三年針對程序面，檢討舉證責任與證據調查程序及調查方式的關係，整體性歸納前二年度的研究所得，做體繫上分析舉證責任與刑事訴訟法第一六三條，第三七九條第十款等證據調查規定的關係。本研究計畫預期能透過實證調查研究，整理實務上關於舉證責任運作上的問題特徵及爭議狀況，並加以類型化。據此，從本國學說及比較法的觀點進行分析檢討，以釐清舉證責任的內涵及其與法院職權調查間之界限，將有助於審檢辯三方適用舉證責任合乎修法意旨，而益趨穩定成熟。 Criminal procedural law revised in 2003 adopted the rule of the prosecutor』s burden of proof as a symbol of adversary system. This rule is not only important to define deference of the role between prosecutors and judges, but also helpful to safeguard the right to be presumed innocent. The burden of proof and the standard of proof lie at the heart of the criminal trial. According to Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 11, Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. The expression burden of proof is used in two senses in a criminal trail: the obligation on the prosecution to prove all the facts necessary to establish guilty; and the obligation on either prosecution or defense to establish the facts upon a particular issue. In the first sense, it is known as the persuasive or legal burden; in the second sense, the burden is called evidential, meaning the burden of adducing evidence. It is no doubt that the prosecution bears the persuasive burden in a criminal trial, and the prosecution must prove all the elements in the offence necessary to establish guilt. Nevertheless there are arguments on the issues whether the defense bears the persuasive burden of establish insanity or self-defense, and whether the defense bears the burden of adducing evidence in a particular issue and how to adduce it. The opinions concerning these issues are not according in the trial. Therefore I am concerned about whether admitting the exceptions of the persuasive burden of proof would violate the right to be presumed innocent. On the other hand, this new rule would have a great pressure to the enforcement of prosecution. I am deeply interested in the practical situation about this article. This research attempts to examine the burden of proof in the criminal procedural with a three-year investigation on the enforcement of prosecutions and judges, especially focusing on the issues above. Moreover, from a viewpoint of comparative law, this research investigates how to keep the valence between the right to be presumed innocent and fact-finding in the United States as well as Japan. The results will provide a much helpful and valuable viewpoint to improve the unfair practice of court and make the role between prosecutors and judges more clear.
Relation:	研究編號：NSC95-2414-H029-002-SSS 研究期間：2008-08~ 2009-07
Appears in Collections:	[法律學系所] 國科會研究報告

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Loading...