論檢察官勘驗

On the Prosecutor's Inquest

張明偉(Ming-Woei Chang)

勘驗 ； 檢察官 ； 令狀原則 ； 正當程序 ； 身體檢查 ； Investigation ； Prosecutor ； Writ Principle ； Due Process ； Physical Examination of a Person

中正大學法學集刊

71期（2021 / 04 / 01）

1 - 52

繁體中文

刑事訴訟法第二百十二條明文法官與檢察官均得實施勘驗，以發現真實。然而，此種規定是否恰當，就檢察官係當事人一方及法院為事實認定者來說，恐有疑義。又關於檢察官勘驗筆錄之證據能力，最高法院向來認為其為傳聞陳述，如於勘驗時已通知被告或其律師在場，即得依刑事訴訟法第一百五十九條之一第二項規定取得證據能力；惟此種見解亦存在混淆傳聞法理之瑕疵。此外，在無令狀之情況下實施身體檢查是否符合正當程序的要求，也是一個值得深入探討的課題。

The Article 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of ROC states that both judges and prosecutors may conduct an inquest in order to discover the truth. However, whether this provision is appropriate might be contestable since the prosecutor is one of the parties in a case and the judge plays the role as a factfinder. Additionally, regarding the prosecutor's ability to examine the out-of-court statement, the ROC Supreme Court has always considered it as an inadmissible hearsay. If the defendant or his lawyer has been notified by the prosecutor to be present at the time of the investigation, evidential capacity can be obtained and the statement can be ruled as admissible at trial in accordance with the Item 2 of Article 159-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this opinion is flawed in terms of the wrongful application on hearsay rules. Furthermore, whether the execution of a physical examination without a warrant violates the principle of due process is also a topic worthy of in-depth discussion.

1. Bernstein, Mark I.(2015).Jury Evaluation of Expert Testimony under the Federal Rules.Drexel,7,239.
2. Cohn, Sherman L.(1984).The Work-Product Doctrine: Protection.Not Privilege,71,917.
3. Cole, Martin A., Lawyer-As-Witness Rule Often Misunderstood, Sep. 6, 1999, http://lprb.mncourts.gov/articles/Articles/Lawyer-As-Witness%20Rule%20Often%20Misunderstood.pdf (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
4. Crocke, Lawrence(1979).The Ethics of Moving to Disqualify Opposing Counsel for Conflict of Interest.Duke L.J.,1979,1310.
5. Feldman, Steven W.(1981).The Work Product Rule in Criminal Practice and Procedure.U. Cin. L. Rev.,50,495.
6. Furman, H. Patrick(2008).Opinion Testimony.Colo. Law.,37,33.
7. Goodwin, Robert J.,Gurule, Jimmy(2002).Criminal and Scientific Evidence: Cases, Materials, Problems.LexisNexis.
8. Hand, Learned, The Deficiencies of Trials to Reach the Heart of the Matter, 3 Lectures on Legal Topics 89 (1926).
9. Imwinkelried, Edward J.(2000).Evaluating the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony: A Partial Answer to the Question Left Unresolved by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael.Me. L. Rev.,52,19.
10. Johnson, David Fowler, Court Disqualified Attorney Where Attorney Would Testify As Witness, WINSTEAD, Jan. 6, 2016, https://www.txfiduciarylitigator.com/2016/01/court-disqualified-attorney-where-attorney-would-testify-as-witness/ (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
11. Luce, Charles F. Jr., The Ethics of Naming Opposing Counsel As a Witness, Moye∣White, 1997, http://www.mgovg.com/ethics/1nameop.htm (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
12. MaguIre, John MacArthur, Evidence: Common Sense and Common Law, Foundation Press (1947).
13. Margolick, David, Simpson Jury Is Taken on a Tour of the Crime Scene, The New York Times, Feb. 13, 1995.
14. Monnat, Daniel E.,Nichols, Paige A.(2007).Sidelining the Prosecutor in a Criminal Case.Journal of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association,30,11.
15. Moulding, Karen B.(ed.)(2019).Sexual Orientation and the Law.West.
16. Northup, Jane(2019).University of Rhode Island.
17. Richey, Charles R.(1994).Proposals to Eliminate the Prejudicial Effect of the Use of the Word “Expert” under the Federal Rules Evidence in Civil and Criminal Jury Trials.F.R.D.,154,537.
18. Richmond, Douglas R.(2006).Lawyers as Witnesses.N.M. L. Rev.,36,47.
19. Rothstein, Paul F.(2012).Federal Rules of Evidence.Clark Boardman Callaghan.
20. Salter, Jim & Hanna, John, Prosecutor-as-witness move sinks case against Greitens, AP News, May 16, 2018, https://apnews.com/9c828fe393eb46298c10ef18646f6f20 (last visited Aug. 21, 2020).
21. Strong, John W.(ed.)(1999).McCormick on Evidence.West.
22. Thayer, James Bradley, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law, Kelly (1898).
23. Wald, Eli(2007).Disqualifying a District Attorney When a Government Witness Was Once the District Attorney’s Client: The Law Between the Courts and the State.Denver Univ. L. Rev.,85,369.
24. Wigmore, John Henry, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Vol. 4), Little, Brown & Company (2nd ed. 1923).
25. 小野清一郎、團藤重光，中華民國刑事訴訟法，中華民國法制研究社，1938年10月。
26. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕(2018).刑事訴訟法（上）.新學林.
27. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕(2018).刑事訴訟法（下）.新學林.
28. 白錫鏗，女檢被控性騷及種族歧視，聯合報，2019年3月26日，https://udn.com/news/story/7321/3720090 （最後瀏覽日 2020/08/21）。
29. 朱石炎(2010).刑訴訴訟法論.三民.
30. 朱學瑛（譯）,張弘昌（譯）,劉河山（譯）,蔡甄漪（譯）(2016).日本刑事訴訟法暨刑事訴訟規則.法務部.
31. 吳宏耀（編）,種松志（編）(2012).中國刑事訴訟法典百年（上冊）.中國政法大學出版社.
32. 吳燦(2018)。勘驗筆之證據能力。月旦法學教室，188，25-28。
33. 李秀清（編）,陳頤（編）,商務印書館編譯所（編譯）,冷霞（點校）(2013).德國六法.上海人民出版社.
34. 李秀清（編）,陳頤（編）,商務印書館編譯所（編譯）,黃琴唐（點校）(2013).日本六法全書.上海人民出版社.
35. 李佳玟，檢察官這樣勘驗被告女性身體已是濫權性騷擾，上報，2019年 4月 2日 ， https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=60405（最後瀏覽日2020/08/21）。
36. 岡田朝太郎,娜鶴雅（點校）(2015).岡田朝太郎法學文集.法律出版社.
37. 林永謀(2007).刑事訴訟法釋論（中冊）.自版.
38. 林俊益(2019).刑事訴訟法概論（上）.新學林.
39. 林鈺雄(2017).刑事訴訟法（上冊）.自版.
40. 林鈺雄,王士帆(2015)。刑事類實務導讀（最高法院104年度台上字第1415號刑事判決等6則裁判之說明）。台灣法學雜誌，280，144-148。
41. 松尾浩野,丁相順（譯）,金光旭（校）(2005).日本刑事訴訟法上卷.中國人民大學出版社.
42. 張明偉(2018).傳聞例外.元照.
43. 張建強(2011)。國立政治大學法律研究所。
44. 連孟琦（譯）(2016).德國刑事訴訟法──附德國法院組織法選譯.元照.
45. 陳宗元，陳宗元觀點：生炒花枝法學──檢察官的八隻腳，要砍？不砍？，風傳媒，2017年5月24日 ，https://www.storm.mg/article/270568（最後瀏覽日2020/08/21）。
46. 傅美惠(2008)。勘驗之思與辯──我國勘驗法制之評析。刑事法雜誌，52(5)，105-149。
47. 湯德宗(2003).行政程序法論.元照.
48. 黃朝義(2003)。勘驗與鑑定。月旦法學教室，3(12)，74-86。
49. 黃源盛(2006)。近代刑事訴訟的生成與展開──大理院關於刑事訴訟程序判決箋釋（1919-1914）。清華法學，2006(2)，83-133。
50. 楊雲驊(2012)。檢察官依法勘驗製作勘驗筆錄與傳聞法則──評最高法院96年度台上字第7335號判決、97年度台上字第2019號判決、97年度台上字第5061號判決、99年度台上字第4003號判決。檢察新論，11，2-21。
51. 劉耀明(2016)。入性身體檢查處分之比較研究。刑事法雜誌，60(1)，17-60。
52. 蔡墩銘(1993).德日刑事訴訟法.五南.
53. 蔡墩銘(1993).刑事訴訟法論.三民.