論刑事訴訟中勘驗、檢查筆錄的證據能力

Evidence Capacity on the Records of View and Inspection in Criminal Procedure

刑事訴訟中勘驗、檢查筆錄的應然範圍應當僅包括五官感知類筆錄，不應包括搜查、扣押類筆錄與證據提取類筆錄，其在證據屬性上應當屬於言詞證據。國外在勘驗、檢 查筆錄證據能力立法模式的設置上，存在傳聞證據模式與直接言詞模式兩類，我國宜選擇傳聞證據模式，但同時應當借鑒直接言詞模式的成功經驗。針對我國勘驗、檢查筆錄缺乏證據能力規則約束，勘驗、檢查人員出庭作證缺乏規制的問題，應當對勘驗、檢查筆錄的證據能力規則予以建構。勘驗、檢查筆錄原則上不具備證據能力，應當要求法庭審判時法官親自進行勘驗、檢查或者偵查人員出庭作證。勘驗、檢查筆錄只有符合以“可信性之情況保障”與“必要性”為設置標準的例外情形時，才具備證據能力。

In Criminal Procedure, the records of view and inspection should include only the notes through sense perception, and do not include the notes through search, detention or extraction. The records of view and inspection are oral evidence on the property of evidence. In other countries, there are hearsay mode and direct verbal mode on the set of evidence capacity rules. We should draw the hearsay mode and adopt the successful experience of direct verbal mode at the same time. Because of the evidence capacity of the records of view and inspection lacks of rule-bound and the investigators do not testify in court, the evidence capacity rules should be constructed. There is no evidence capacity to the records of view and inspection in principle, and the trial judges should carry out the views and the inspections personally or the investigators testify in court. There is evidence capacity to the records of view and inspection only when the exceptions meet the 'credibility of the security situation' and 'necessity' standards.