論證人域外陳述之證據能力

The Admissibility of Out-of-Court Statements Made by A Foreign Witness

由於臺灣憲法並未明文保障對質詰問權，因此，一直到釋字第384號解釋作成後，對質詰問權之保障才成為憲法位階的法制爭議。雖然在域外警訊筆錄之證據能力盼對，最高法院107年第1次刑庭會議決議肯認刑事訴訟法第159條之2、第159條之3等規定之類推適用，惟此種見解之妥當性，確有進一步探討之空間。在分析美國實務發展後，應可確認審判外陳述之真實性本身，才是應否踐行對質詰問程序之判斷標準，因此，未區分陳述本身是否具真實性特徵即肯認得以類推適用方式限制對質詰問權之我國實務，就未具真實性特徵之審判外陳述部分，即存在過度限制對質詰問權之違憲爭議。為保障被告於審判中所應享有之對質詰問權，最高法院107年第1次刑庭會議決議本身，即有再行補充、修正之必要。

The right to confront is not written in the ROC Constitution, however, the Grand Justice Council has recognized it in JY Intepretation No. 384 since 1995. Under the hearsay rule in the ROC Criminal Procedure Code, it is not clear whether the out-of-court statements made by a foreign witness is admissible because the Code does not provide it directly. In practice, courts hold it admissible according to Articles 159-2 and 159-3 of the Code. This paper examines the practices with the hearsay theory and concludes that the practical holding might improperly conflict with the right to confront of the defendant.