论启动刑事再审之新证据

发布时间：2018-02-12 05:23

本文关键词： 刑事再审启动程序新证据配套制度　出处：《中国青年政治学院》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：刑事再审作为中国刑事诉讼法的唯一非常救济程序,承担着平衡刑事诉讼目的的重担,既要发现真实又要维护法安定性。正义不仅体现在实体法的正义也要求程序正义,如此才能更好地维护法安定性。于是,刑事再审的启动程序便成为这个天平的支点,一定要处于杠杆的中间。启动刑事再审之新证据在刑事再审启动程序中起着至关重要的作用,也是完善刑事再审启动程序的突破口,因为这个问题集实体法、程序法、证据法问题于一身。台湾别具特色的刑事诉讼结构中,也对此问题形成了一些独到的见解,认为“新证据”应当具备“崭新性”和“显著性”两个要件,的确有值得借鉴之处。具备崭新性的证据是指在原审法院因不知而没有经过法庭调查的证据。具备显著性的证据是指显然足以动摇原审判决认定的事实基础,且证明原判决可能改判为其他判决。然而,鉴于在救济程序方面中国大陆刑事诉讼法与台湾的刑事诉讼法之间巨大的差别,借鉴的同时,为了正确适用“新证据”需要完善其配套制度。首先要完善“新证据”的法律概念,关于未予收集、质证的证据仅限定在没有调查可能性而未经收集和未予质证的证据才能够成为“新证据”。启动刑事再审的主体方面,应当取消法院自主启动再审的权利,明确检察院的抗诉启动再审的效力,赋予被告人和检察官同等的再审申请权。新证据分为有利于被告人的新证据和不利于被告人的新证据。用于申请不利于被告人的新证据,其显著性应当受到更严格的限制,在可能改变的量刑比较小或虽可能改变罪名却可能不必改变量刑时,认定该新证据不够显著,因此不启动再审。在有利于被告人的再审申请启动再审后,严格遵循“再审不加刑”原则。无论是哪一种新证据,在法院认定其符合新证据要求后,控辩双方就应当拥有阅卷权。此外,要以法律形式明确规定新证据的侦查程序和审查程序。
[Abstract]:As the only special relief procedure of Chinese criminal procedure law, criminal retrial bears the burden of balancing the purpose of criminal procedure. It is necessary to find the truth and maintain the stability of law. Justice is not only embodied in the justice of substantive law, but also requires procedural justice. Only in this way can we better maintain the stability of the law. Thus, the initiation process of the criminal retrial becomes the fulcrum of this balance. We must be in the middle of the lever. The new evidence of starting the criminal retrial plays a vital role in the criminal retrial initiation procedure, and it is also a breakthrough in perfecting the criminal retrial initiation procedure, because this problem sets the substantive law, the procedural law, In Taiwan's unique criminal procedure structure, there are some unique opinions on this issue, which holds that "new evidence" should have two elements of "brand-new" and "significant". There is something to be learned from it. Evidence with a brand new character refers to evidence that has not been investigated by a court of first instance without knowing it. Evidence with significance means that it is clearly sufficient to shake the factual basis of the determination of the original trial judgment, However, in view of the huge difference between the criminal procedure law of the mainland of China and the criminal procedure law of Taiwan, we can learn from it at the same time. In order to apply "new evidence" correctly, we need to perfect its supporting system. First, we should perfect the legal concept of "new evidence". The evidence of cross-examination is limited to the evidence that has no possibility of investigation and has not been collected or cross-examined in order to become "new evidence"... the right of the court to initiate the retrial on its own initiative should be abolished, as far as the subject of initiating the criminal retrial is concerned, Defining the effectiveness of the procuratorate's protest to initiate the retrial, giving the accused and the prosecutor the same right to apply for retrial. The new evidence is divided into new evidence in favor of the defendant and new evidence against the defendant, and used to apply for new evidence against the defendant, Its significance should be subject to more stringent restrictions, finding that the new evidence is not significant enough when the sentencing that may be changed is relatively small or when the charges may be changed but the sentence may not have to be changed, Therefore, do not initiate a retrial. After the application for retrial in favor of the accused is initiated, the principle of "retrial without additional penalty" is strictly followed. No matter what kind of new evidence it is, after the court determines that it meets the new evidentiary requirements, In addition, the investigation procedure and examination procedure of the new evidence should be clearly stipulated in the form of law.
【学位授予单位】：中国青年政治学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】