人民法院应否对鉴定意见作实质性审查——以李某、吴某故意伤害案为例

Whether the People’s Court Should Make Substantive Examination of the Expert Opinion—Taking an Intentional Injury Case by Li and Wu as an Example

为保证法官合理地评价、采信鉴定意见,在事实认定上确保相对公正,笔者以司法实务案例为基础,通过深入分析江西省景德镇市两级法院审结的被告人李某、吴某故意伤害案中两份不同结论的鉴定意见,总结归纳人民法院对鉴定意见的实质审查规则和法官相应的认证规则。笔者认为人民法院既有资格、也有必要对鉴定意见作实质审查,经审查的鉴定意见只有在实质、形式两个层面均符合专业规范性要求,才可以作为定案根据予以采信。审判人员应当结合基本逻辑和生活经验,从鉴定材料的真实性、原始性、充分性,鉴定方法和鉴定过程的科学性、普遍适用性,鉴定内容的相关性等方面全面审查鉴定意见。如果发现鉴定意见的关键事实存疑、鉴定材料不完备、鉴定方法明显欠妥等实质层面的问题,即使鉴定机构具备相应的鉴定资质,人民法院对该份鉴定意见也不可采信。

In order to ensure the reasonable evaluation and acceptance of the expert opinion from judges, and to ensure the relative fairness in the determination of facts, the author, based on the judicial practice cases, summarized the substantive review rules of the people’s court and the corresponding authentication rules of judges through in-depth analysis of two expert opinions with different conclusions of the defendant Li and Wu in the intentional injury case concluded by the two levels of Jingdezhen City courts in Jiangxi Province. The author believes that it is both qualified and necessary for the people’s court to conduct substantive examination of the expert opinion. Only when the reviewed expert opinion meets the professional normative requirements in both substance and form can it be accepted as the basis for the final case. Judicial personnel should combine the basic logic and life experience, from the authenticity of appraisal materials, original, sufficiency, appraisal method and appraisal process of scientific, universal applicability, appraisal content relevance and other aspects of a comprehensive examination of the opinion. If it is found that the key facts of the expert opinion are doubtful, the appraisal materials are incomplete, the appraisal methods are obviously inappropriate and other substantive problems, the expert opinion cannot be admissible by the people’s court even if the appraisal institution has the corresponding appraisal qualification.