摘要
技术性证据专门审查意见具有技术性、派生性、核查性和职权性特点,现行司法解释及规范性文件尚未确认其证据能力。技术审查意见具有解释性证明力、佐证性证明力和实质性证明力,其证据能力能够从相关性理论获得根本证成,能从《刑诉法解释》第100条得到规范支撑,亦有系列裁判包括重大案件裁判支持,具有实践许容性。审查意见的派生性和可能具有的“当事人性”,均不足以否定其证据能力。确认其证据能力,有助于建构证据支持体系,契合技术审查工作的发展方向。法官履行查证责任而非证明责任,且为防止“自审自鉴”的类似不当,区别于检察机关技术审查意见,法院自身的技术审核意见应坚持其内部性,仅用于辅助心证。技术审查意见如用作证据,需要满足相关性、必要性、专业规范性以及程序要件,可以区分不同情形作为主要证据或辅助证据使用,且注意把握不同审查方法对证明作用的影响。应完善相关证据规则,为技术审查意见的司法适用提供依据和遵循。
The specialized review opinion on technical evidence is technical,derivative,verifiable and authoritative,and its competency of evidence has not been confirmed by the current judicial interpretation and normative documents.The technical review opinion has explanatory,corroborative and substantive probative power,and can be fundamentally proved by the relevance theory,supported by Article 100 of the interpretation on the application of the Criminal Procedure Law.A series of judgements,including important case judgement,can also illustrate the permissive nature of the competency of evidence in practice.Neither the derivative nature nor the possible“party character”of the review opinion is sufficient to negate the competency of evidence.Confirmation of the competency of evidence of specialized review opinions helps to build an evidence support system,which is in line with the direction of development of technical review work.Judges fulfil the duty to verify rather than to prove,and in order to prevent similar improprieties of“self-verify and self-identification”,the court’s review opinions on technical evidence should be distinguished from the procuratorial authority’s review opinions,and should be internal and used only to assist in the examination of evidence.If technical review opinions are used as evidence,it needs to meet the requirements of relevance,necessity,professional standard and procedural elements,and can be used as primary or auxiliary evidence in different circumstances,while attention should be paid to the impact of different review methods on the role of proof.In order to provide a basis and guidance for the judicial application of technical review opinions,the rules of evidence should be improved.
作者
龙宗智
胡佳
Long Zongzhi;Hu Jia(the Law School of Sichuan University)
出处
《国家检察官学院学报》
CSSCI
北大核心
2023年第5期109-122,共14页
Journal of National Prosecutors College
基金
2022年度最高人民检察院检察理论研究课题“技术性证据专门审查工作机制研究”(GJ2022C28)的阶段性成果
