我国证据裁量排除模式的基本构造

The Basic Structure of Evidence Discretionary Exclusion Model in China

我国证据裁量排除模式呈现出"行为—基准—例外"的基本构造。取证行为不符合法定程序应指不符合法律设定的取证程序,在法律条文文意和目的射程范围内的制定规则也应是法定程序的组成部分。在判定行为具有违法性后应进入第二层的基准判断,可能严重影响司法公正是立法设定的宏观裁量基准,对其判断宜综合考量以下微观基准:违反程序的情节和频率,违反程序的后果,违反程序时的主观意图,违反程序与取得证据之间的因果联系,违法行为所侵犯的权益种类和轻重,证据的价值。依照裁量基准应当排除非法证据的,检控方可主张存在排除例外。补正与合理解释不是证据排除规则的裁量基准,而是需要主张者进行证明的排除规则的例外。我国裁量排除可遵循三步判断模式:先进行违法行为主观方面的判断,再进行违法行为客观方面的判断,最后权衡追诉利益和预防将来违法取证之效果,决定是否排除系争证据。

The basic structure of China’s evidence discretionary exclusion model consists of behavior,benchmark and exception. The inconformity of evidence collection behavior with legal procedure means that evidence collection behavior does not conform to the evidence collection procedure set by law. The enactment of rules within the scope of context and purposes of law articles is an integral part of legal procedure. A second-level benchmark judgment shall be made after a behavior is judged illegal. What may exert great impact on judicial justice is the macro discretionary benchmarks set by law, which shall be judged by considering the micro benchmarks, including circumstances, frequency, consequences and subjective intentions in violation of the legal procedure, the casual connection between the violation of law and evidence collection,types of rights and interests infringed by the illegal behaviors as well as severity of the infringement and value of the evidence. If the illegal evidence is excluded according to the discretionary benchmark, the prosecution may claim that there is an exclusion exception. Corrections and reasonable explanations are not discretionary benchmarks of evidence exclusionary rules but exceptions of exclusionary rules requiring the prosecutor’s proof. China’s discretionary exclusion may follow three-step judgment model： making subjective judgments on illegal behaviors, making objective judgments on illegal behaviors, and weighing the benefits of prosecution and the effects of future illegal evidence collection to decide whether to exclude the contentious evidence or not.