死因鉴定意见审查判断规则之反思与重塑

Rethinking and recasting the examination and evaluation rules of forensic expert opinion on cause of death

司法实践中,存在多份重复性甚至冲突性死因鉴定意见的刑事个案频发,确认死因往往成为核心争点,如何审酌鉴定意见证据、认定实体事实继而成为法庭裁判的重心。但现行法并未识别死因鉴定意见较之其他类鉴定意见的特殊之处,以致一般性审查判断规则在具体适用中显得僵化。法庭对死因鉴定意见的"遵从"导致质证缺乏对抗性;死因鉴定意见所隐含的经验性、知识性、传闻性表明其并不自证其可靠性;死因鉴定意见具有间接证明属性,自身无法充足对死亡相关事实的完整证明,需要结合其他证据进行综合审查判断;死因鉴定意见要求鉴定人对尸检过程、尸检操作规程、意见作出的依据及意见认定等作出解释说明。为此,有必要在反思现行法不足的基础上,重塑死因鉴定意见审查判断的体系性规则:以审判中心主义为统摄性要求;确立被告人对质权,使其有权质疑并挑战控方证明;鉴定人出庭就死因鉴定意见做出解释与说明,此为死因鉴定意见可采性的程序性要件;明确专门知识人及其意见在诉讼中的地位和作用,使其成为增强质证充分性、有效性的手段。

With an arising number of criminal cases featuring repetitive or even confl icting forensic expert opinions on cause of death in judicial practice, the identifi cation of cause of death tends to be a core dispute and accordingly becomes the essential issue for courts to examine and evaluate opinion evidence and fi nd the substantial facts. However, the current law is not aware of the uniqueness of the forensic expert opinion on cause of the death when compared to other categories of forensic appraisal, which results in a rigid application of examination and evaluation rules in general. The ＂deferring＂ of the court to expert opinion on cause of death leads to a lack of adversary in confrontation. The experience-based, knowledge-oriented and hearsay-featured expert opinion on cause of death cannot prove reliable by itself. The expert opinion on cause of death bears a character of indirect proof and cannot constitute a full proof over the death-related facts and therefore needs to be combined with other evidence with a comprehensive review by trial judge. The expert opinion on cause of death requires the forensic expert to explain the autopsy process, the autopsy operation procedures, the basis of the opinion, determination of opinion and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to refl ect on the insuffi ciency of the current law and to recast the systematic rules for examining and evaluating expert opinion on cause of death. Several feasible suggestions are proposed in this article：（a） promoting the trial centralism;（b） entitling the accused to the right to doubt and challenge the proof by prosecution;（c） requiring the appraiser＇s appearance in court to testify his/her testimonial opinions; and（d） acknowledging the forensic auxiliary specialist’s legal role in criminal trials.