陽明交大法學評論第11期
- 發布單位：科技法律研究所
檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度台上大字第5660號裁定為中心
Prosecutors Shall Bear the Burden of Proof with the Obligation for Providing Clear Explanations of“Facts for Repeated Offending”and“Crimes that Should Be Aggregated”: Centered on“110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660”Ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan
作者：邱忠義
出版年月：202209
關鍵詞：改良式當事人進行主義；累犯；舉證責任；說明責任；嚴格證明；Modified Adversary System；Repeated Offending；Burden of Proof；Provide；Rule of Strict Proof
中文摘要
臺灣司法實務雖早已改採改良式當事人進行主義，惟仍有若干思維殘存糾問主義色彩，尤其是對被告不利益之事項，仍遺留著職權進行主義之餘威。以累犯為例，司法實務向認為關於被告具有「累犯事實」以及「應加重量刑之事項」，屬於法院認定事實與適用法律之基礎事項，客觀上有調查之必要性，法院「應」依職權加以調查。惟最高法院刑事大法庭 110 年度台上大字第 5660 號裁定，藉助於司法院釋字第 775 號解釋所蘊涵的司法改革理路，做出震撼性的宣告：上開累犯事項，應分別由檢察官負舉證、說明責任。此一裁定，雖是最高法院擺脫職權進行主義舊例的一小步，但已足以將司法改革之路往前推進一大步。
英文摘要
Although the “modified adversary system” has been adopted by Taiwan’s criminal practice for a long while, somewhat extents of the “inquisitorial system” remain. In particular, the “inquisitorial system” still shadows matters disadvantaged to the defendant. Using a repeated offender as an example, in Taiwan’s judicial practice, it is believed that “facts for repeated offending” and “crimes that should be aggregated” are basic matters that the court shall know for determining the facts and applying laws. Thus, it is believed that the court “shall” investigate these basic matters ex officio. However, the “110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660” ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan, which incorporated the judicial reform rationale given in “Judicial Yuan’s interpretation No. 755,” surprisingly stated that, regarding the above two basic matters for the repeated offenders, prosecutors shall bear the bur-den of proof with the obligation for providing clear explanations. Though this rul-ing may be merely a small step for the Taiwan Supreme Court to get rid of the “in-quisitorial system”, it is enough to push the Taiwanese judicial reform to make a giant step
作者：邱忠義
出版年月：202209
關鍵詞：改良式當事人進行主義；累犯；舉證責任；說明責任；嚴格證明；Modified Adversary System；Repeated Offending；Burden of Proof；Provide；Rule of Strict Proof
中文摘要
臺灣司法實務雖早已改採改良式當事人進行主義，惟仍有若干思維殘存糾問主義色彩，尤其是對被告不利益之事項，仍遺留著職權進行主義之餘威。以累犯為例，司法實務向認為關於被告具有「累犯事實」以及「應加重量刑之事項」，屬於法院認定事實與適用法律之基礎事項，客觀上有調查之必要性，法院「應」依職權加以調查。惟最高法院刑事大法庭 110 年度台上大字第 5660 號裁定，藉助於司法院釋字第 775 號解釋所蘊涵的司法改革理路，做出震撼性的宣告：上開累犯事項，應分別由檢察官負舉證、說明責任。此一裁定，雖是最高法院擺脫職權進行主義舊例的一小步，但已足以將司法改革之路往前推進一大步。
英文摘要
Although the “modified adversary system” has been adopted by Taiwan’s criminal practice for a long while, somewhat extents of the “inquisitorial system” remain. In particular, the “inquisitorial system” still shadows matters disadvantaged to the defendant. Using a repeated offender as an example, in Taiwan’s judicial practice, it is believed that “facts for repeated offending” and “crimes that should be aggregated” are basic matters that the court shall know for determining the facts and applying laws. Thus, it is believed that the court “shall” investigate these basic matters ex officio. However, the “110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660” ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan, which incorporated the judicial reform rationale given in “Judicial Yuan’s interpretation No. 755,” surprisingly stated that, regarding the above two basic matters for the repeated offenders, prosecutors shall bear the bur-den of proof with the obligation for providing clear explanations. Though this rul-ing may be merely a small step for the Taiwan Supreme Court to get rid of the “in-quisitorial system”, it is enough to push the Taiwanese judicial reform to make a giant step
