證人出庭作證“必要性條款”解釋適用研究

A Study on the Interpretation and Application of the ''Necessity Clause'' for Witnesses to Testify in Court

證人出庭與否不僅關係到案件事實真相的準確查明，還直接關係到被告人辯護權利能否得到充分的尊重和保障。通過對420份裁判文書的梳理可以發現，人民法院在證人“有必要出庭”條款的適用上，主要關注事實認定的準確性，而對被告人訴訟權利缺乏應有的關照。在權利保障已成為刑事司法主流話語的今天，有必要“以對質權為中心”對該條款進行規範解釋。但在個案適用過程中，為了實現證人出庭背後多重法益的動態平衡與相對穩定，對質權的行使應當具有一定的靈活性。在控辯雙方提出實質異議的情況下，法官原則上應當允許證人出庭，即使在例外情形下認為“沒有必要出庭”，也應提供令人信服的理由。為此，需要在比例原則的基本框架下，對人民法院認為“證人沒有必要出庭”的充分理由進行類型化建構，以最大限度地保障公正審判的實現。

Whether the witness appears in court or not is not only related to the accurate investigation of the truth of the case, but also directly related to whether the defendant' s right to defense can be properly respected and guaranteed. Through sorting out 420 judgment documents, it can be found that the people's court mainly focuses on the accuracy of fact determination in the application of the ''necessity of appearing in court'' clause, but lacks due attention for the defendant's litigation rights. Nowadays, the protection of rights has become the mainstream discourse of criminal justice, so it is necessary to interpret this clause normatively ''with the right of confrontation as the center''. However, in the process of case application, in order to achieve the dynamic balance and relative stability of multiple legal interests behind the witness's appearance in court, the exercise of the confrontation right should be flexible. In the case of substantive objections raised by the prosecution and the defense, the judge should, in principle, allow the witness to appear in court, and ought to provide convincing reasons even if it is deemed not necessary'' in exceptional circumstances. Therefore, under the basic framework of the principle of proportionality, it is necessary to construct the sufficient reasons for the people's court to consider that ''witnesses are not necessary to appear in court'' in order to maximize the realization of fair trial.