域外公文書之證據能力

On the Admissibility of Foreign Public Documents

刑事訴訟法第159條第1項：「被告以外之人於審判外之言詞或書面陳述，除法律有規定者外，不得作為證據。」因最高法院107年度第1次刑事庭會議決議肯認域外警察所製作之筆錄具證據能力，關於域外非警察作成公文書之證據能力基礎為何，因法未明文，即有探討之必要。本文於介紹我國實務發展與美國法制後，主張應以積極存在特別可信情狀作為域外公文書之證據能力基礎。此外，未於境外取證程序中保障被告對質權之我國現行傳聞法制，亦存在違反正當持續的疑慮。

Article 159, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides: “Unless otherwise provided by law, oral or written statements made out of trial by a person other than the accused, shall not be admitted as evidence.” While the first Criminal Division Conference of the Supreme Court in 2018 concluded that police interrogation minutes made by foreign police officials is admissible, whether other public documents made by non-police officials is admissible deserves further discussion for the law provides nothing about it. After introducing the hearsay practices in Taiwan and the corresponding hearsay development in the United States, this study states that the admissibility of the foreign public documents bases upon the existence of the trustworthy circumstances while the documents were made. In addition, the current legal design of hearsay system in Taiwan might violate the due process as it does not guarantee the right to confront of the defendant while requesting the foreign government to obtain evidence abroad.