刑事裁判中類似事實之舉證／緑大輔（譯文）

Similar Fact Evidence in Criminal Procedure

為使國民能夠有效參與刑事審判，必須在準備程序階段，先就證據有無證據能力，以及調查必要性進行判斷。然而，在日本裁判員制度中，關於是否得以提出涉及與公訴事實相類似之事實，即「類似事實」；抑或可否提出被告過去之前科證據，即「性格證據」用來作為本案犯罪事實時，即成為訴訟攻防重點。對此，本文先闡述區分證據關聯性、證據調查必要性以及調查證據所產生弊害之內涵後，以其作為從準備程序中法院篩選證據之標準；再藉由上開討論，除借鏡美國法外，更進一步分析日本裁判員制度中，應如何提出類似事實證據，用以作為認定犯罪事實之依據。

In order for a citizen to effectively participate in a criminal trial, a determination must be made at the preliminary proceedings as to whether the evidence is admissible or not, and the courts shall consider the necessity of the evidence investigation in accordance. However, in the Japanese Saibanin system, it is important to consider whether facts similar to the facts, which can be presented, i.e., “Similar Fact Evidence,” or whether evidence of the defendant’s prior convictions, i.e., “Bad Character Evidence,” can be presented as the facts of the crime in this case. In this regard, this article first explains the distinction between the relevance of evidence, the necessity of the evidence investigation in accordance, and the dangerous caused by the investigation of evidence, and then uses them as criteria for the selection of evidence by the court in the preliminary proceeding. In this regard, this article first explains how the Japanese Saibanin system should present Similar Crimes Evidence as a basis for determining the facts of a crime.