組織犯罪案件審判之傳聞法則適用

Hearsay Rules in Trials of Offenses of the Organized Crime Prevention Act

10.6199/NTULJ.2016.45.03.05

張明偉(Ming-Woei Chang)

組織犯罪防制條例 ； 證明性傳聞 ； 傳聞法則 ； 證據能力 ； 對質 ； the Organized Crime Prevention Act ； testimonial hearsay ； Hearsay Rules ； admissibility ； confrontation

臺大法學論叢

45卷3期（2016 / 09 / 01）

1045 - 1094

繁體中文

依組織犯罪防制條例第12條第1項中段：「訊問證人之筆錄，以在檢察官或法官面前作成，並經踐行刑事訴訟法所定訊問證人之程序者為限，始得採為證據」之規定，警訊筆錄於組織犯罪事件審判中不具證據能力。然而，在刑事訴訟法制定傳聞法則後，是否仍有必要維持該條規定，似有檢討之必要。本文除自立法背景之角度，探討本條項規範之目的外，更基於美國相關法制發展之經驗，主張以證人或被害人危險或恐懼之虞限制被告對質詰問審判外證明性傳聞之權利，並不符比例原則之要求；而一概排除非於法官或檢察官面前製作之訊問筆錄證據能力，其過度限制證人審判外陳述證據能力之立法，並不符合傳聞法理，並可能有害組織犯罪防制條例第1條第1項：「為防制組織犯罪，以維護社會秩序，保障人民權益，特制定本條例。」之規範目的達成。因此，在制定傳聞法則後，應無適用組織犯罪防制條例第12條第1項中段規定之必要。

According to the middle section of Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act, which provides: ＂The inquisition report of a witness may only be included as part of the evidence where it is prepared before a judge or a prosecutor in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure,＂the police-prepared inquisition report is inadmissible in trials of offenses of the Act. However, it is questionable to apply this section after the hearsay rules is adopted in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This study bases on the American experience to claim that subjecting the victim or witness to violence, coercion, intimidation or other retaliatory actions is itself not enough to deprive the right to confront of the accused in addition to exploring the background behind the section. And excluding the police-prepared inquisition report absolutely might over-exclude it as evidence, which does not comply with the hearsay rationale and might be against the goal of the Act, set forth in Article 1 of the Act, providing ＂The Organized Crime Prevention Act is established to prevent organized criminal activities and to maintain social order and protect the interests of the public.＂ Therefore, after passing the hearsay rules, it is not necessary to apply he middle section of Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Organized Crime Prevention Act in organized crime cases no more.

1. 立法院公報處（2003）。《立法院公報》，92 卷8 期。臺北：立法院
2. 立法院公報處（1996）。《立法院公報》，85 卷58 期（上）。臺北：立法院
3. Allen, R. J.,Kuhns, R. B.,Swift, E.(2003).Evidence: Text, Cases, and Problems.Sandy, UT:Aspen.
4. Amar, A. R.(1998).Confrontation Clause First Principles: A Reply to Professor Friedman.The Georgetown Law Journal,86,1045-1050.
5. Friedland, S. I.,Bergman, P.,Taslitz, A. E.(2001).Evidence Law and Practice Appendices: Federal Rules of Evidence.Dayton, OH:LexisNexis.
6. Friedman, R. D.(1992).Toward a Partial Economic, Game-Theoretic Analysis of Hearsay.Minnesota Law Review,76,723-796.
7. Friedman, R. D.(2014).The Mold That Shapes Hearsay Law.Florida Law Review,66(1),433-466.
8. Friedman, R. D.,McCormack, B.(2002).Dial-In Testimony.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,150,1171-1253.
9. Goldsmith, M.(1988).RICO and Enterprise Criminality: A Response to GerardE. Lynch.Columbia Law Review,88(4),774-801.
10. Graham, K. W., Jr.(1972).The Right of Confrontation and the Hearsay Rule: Sir Walter Raleigh Loses Another One.Criminal Law Bulletin,8,99-144.
11. Imwinkelried, E. J.(1989).Evidentiary Foundations.Charlottesville, VA:Michie Company.
12. Jonakait, R. N.(1995).The Origins of the Confrontation Clause: An Alternative History.Rutgers Law Journal,27(1),77-168.
13. Kettles, G.(1999).Ancient Documents and the Rule Against Multiple Hearsay.Santa Clara Law Review,39,719-764.
14. Park, R. C.,Leonard, D. P.,Goldberg, S. H.(1998).Evidence Law: A Student's Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials.St. Paul, MN:West Group.
15. Strong, J. W.,Broun, K. S.,Dix, G. E.,Imwinkelried, E. J.,Kaye, D. H.,Mosteller, R. P.,Roberts, E. F.(1999).McCormick on Evidence: Practitioner Treatise Series.St. Paul, MN:West Group.
16. Trachtenberg, B.(2012).Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.Florida Law Review,64,1669-1722.
17. U.S. Deptartment of Justice, Criminal Division(2000).Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations: A Manual for Federal Prosecutors.Washington, DC:Organized Crime and Racketeering Section.
18. Waltz, J. R.,Park, R. C.(1999).Evidence: Cases and Materials.New York, NY:Foundation Press.
19. Zitter, J. M.(1999).Annotation, Admissibility of Drug Courier Profile Testimony in Criminal Prosecution.American law reports 5th,69,425-476.
20. 王兆鵬(2000)。搜索扣押與刑事被告的憲法權利。臺北:自刊。
21. 王兆鵬(1999)。刑事被告的憲法權利。臺北:自刊。
22. 王兆鵬(2007)。美國刑事訴訟法。臺北:自刊。
23. 王兆鵬、張明偉、李榮耕(2012)。刑事訴訟法（下）。臺北:自刊。
24. 王兆鵬、陳運財、林俊益、宋耀明、丁中原、張熙懷、葉建廷(2004)。傳聞法則理論與實踐。臺北:元照。
25. 林朝榮、林芸澧(2005)。傳聞法則之比較研究：理論與實務之排比。臺北:文笙書局。
26. 林鈺雄(2013)。刑事訴訟法（上冊）。臺北:自刊。
27. 張明偉(2006)。英美傳聞法則與對質條款的歷史考察。月旦法學雜誌，131，93-118。
28. 陳樸生(1995)。刑事證據法。臺北:自刊。

1. 薛智仁(2017)。2016 年刑事程序法回顧：沒收程序法、羈押閱卷與證據法則。臺大法學論叢，46(S)，1493-1529。
2. 張明偉(2022)。傳聞例外規定之檢視－以公務員職務製作文書與公證文書為中心。臺北大學法學論叢，121，119-173。