性格證據與事實認定—以犯人同一性及主觀要件之證明為中心

Abstract

本篇論文所要探討的是，被告的惡劣性格、類似事實證據與事實認定之間的關係。 雖然在我國《刑事訴訟法》未明文規定，不過，在實務上，以被告「相類似」的前科證明其在本案的犯人同一性或主觀要件，卻是十分常見的。然而，綜觀我國實務對於前述證據的運用，卻可以發現，由於所謂的類似性並沒有統一基準，因此，許多判決的適用結果仍舊無法擺脫以缺乏根據的，被告的惡劣性格推論犯罪要件的陰霾。此外，我國的法院在援引性格證據的過程中，同時混雜了比較法上不同國家的性格證據法則，甚至也有誤用的情況發生。由於法院這樣的作法可能導致事實認定的偏誤，因此，本文嘗試透過對性格證據與類似事實證據的整理與評議，向我國實務提出適用上的建議。 而在進入性格證據法則的整理以前，須提到的是，由於性格證據無法直接證明待證事實，其屬於情況證據的一環，因此，本文同時也會對情況證據的定義、種類，以及其在證據構造當中的定位進行介紹，如此一來，也將更有利於我們理解並評估性格證據的證據價值。 而在進入性格證據以後，本文擬先整理比較法上的性格證據法則，並進一步比較各國在定義、條文制訂以及實際適用上的差異，藉此尋找改善我國實務適用情況的契機。 最後，本文將綜合前述比較法上惡劣性格與類似事實證據法則的精華，並試圖在其未竟之處作出更多延伸，以期提出改善我國實務的適用現況的，更為明確的適用基準。

This thesis aims on the relationship between defendant’s bad character, similar fact evidence and fact-finding. Despite such relationship is not provided in Criminal Procedure Code, proving the identity or the subjective elements of the defendant by “similar” previous convictions is quite common in the legal practice. However, overviewing the use of these above-mentioned evidence in our legal practice, we can observe that, due to the lack of unified standard of so-called “similarity”, the use of these evidence in many judgements still cannot get rid of the defect that inferring criminal elements from defendant’s bad character. Moreover, in the procedure of introducing character evidence, our courts mix different rules of different legal systems, and even misunderstand the usage of them. Due to this misconduct would result in deviations of fact-finding, this thesis attempts to provide advices to our legal practice, through classifying and commenting on character and similar fact evidence. Before starting classifying the rules of character evidence, it should be noted that, the character evidence is part of circumstantial evidence, and it cannot prove the fact directly, thus, this thesis will also make an introduction of the definition and types of circumstantial evidence, and its position in the evidential structure, which will be beneficial for us to understand and evaluate the evidential value of character evidence. After the introduction of character evidence, this thesis will, first, sort out character evidence rules from the perspective of comparative law, and furthermore compare the differences on definitions, provisions, and practice in each legal system, in order to find out the opportunity to improve the circumstance of our judicial practice. In the end, this thesis will integrate the merits of character and similar fact evidence rules in different legal systems, and try to make some extensions on the unconcluded parts, in the hope of presenting a clearer standard to improve the current situation of our legal practice.