被忽视的突袭性裁判:刑事诉讼中证据构造径行变更的程序规制

Neglected Surprise Adjudication:Procedural Regulation of Changes in the Construction of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

证据是定罪量刑之基础。定罪量刑上的裁判突袭,实质指向证据构造的违法变更,两者相比,后者并未得到立法规范及理论研究的重视。证据构造突袭裁判的识别标准具有层次性,区分为诉外裁判和公诉事实同一范围内的裁判变更。在基本类型上,总体存在证据构造不当补强、脱离争点变更及重复评价等情形。对证据构造变更的出入情形应否践行“变更程序”的标准在于是否影响被告防御权之行使。证据构造突袭裁判的生成逻辑具有复杂性,包括但不限于职权主义真实观、刑事诉讼法特殊构造、防范前提要件不足及程序性制裁未彰等。法院证据构造突袭裁判的防范重点应着眼于程序边界的明确控制,主要从规制方式选择、告知防御程序确立、权利保障程序完善,以及程序制裁后果明确四个维度来厘定我国证据构造变更的程序边界。

Evidence is the basis of conviction and sentencing.Surprise adjudication in conviction and sentencing essentially points to illegal changes in the construction of evidence;compared with the former,the latter has not received attention from legislative norms and theoretical research.The identification criteria for evidence construction surprise adjudication are hierarchical,containing extrajudicial decisions and changes in adjuducation within the same scope of public prosecution facts.Generally speaking,there are three basic types:improper reinforcement of evidence construction,change of disengagement from contention points,and repeated evaluation.The criterion for whether the“change procedure”should be practiced for discrepancies in the construction of evidence is whether it affects the exercise of the defendant's right to defense.The generating logic of evidence construction surprise adjudication is complex,including but not limited to authoritarian view of authority,special structure of the Criminal Procedure Law,insufficient preconditions for prevention,and the lack of procedural sanctions.The prevention of court evidence construction surprise adjudication should focus on the clear control of procedural boundaries,which should be conducted mainly from the four dimensions of regulatory method selection,establishment of notification and defense procedures,improvement of rights protection procedures,and clarification of procedural sanctions consequences.