本文關(guān)鍵詞： 刑事再審 啟動(dòng)程序 新證據(jù) 配套制度　出處：《中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院》2014年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：刑事再審作為中國(guó)刑事訴訟法的唯一非常救濟(jì)程序,承擔(dān)著平衡刑事訴訟目的的重?fù)?dān),既要發(fā)現(xiàn)真實(shí)又要維護(hù)法安定性。正義不僅體現(xiàn)在實(shí)體法的正義也要求程序正義,如此才能更好地維護(hù)法安定性。于是,刑事再審的啟動(dòng)程序便成為這個(gè)天平的支點(diǎn),一定要處于杠桿的中間。啟動(dòng)刑事再審之新證據(jù)在刑事再審啟動(dòng)程序中起著至關(guān)重要的作用,也是完善刑事再審啟動(dòng)程序的突破口,因?yàn)檫@個(gè)問(wèn)題集實(shí)體法、程序法、證據(jù)法問(wèn)題于一身。臺(tái)灣別具特色的刑事訴訟結(jié)構(gòu)中,也對(duì)此問(wèn)題形成了一些獨(dú)到的見(jiàn)解,認(rèn)為“新證據(jù)”應(yīng)當(dāng)具備“嶄新性”和“顯著性”兩個(gè)要件,的確有值得借鑒之處。具備嶄新性的證據(jù)是指在原審法院因不知而沒(méi)有經(jīng)過(guò)法庭調(diào)查的證據(jù)。具備顯著性的證據(jù)是指顯然足以動(dòng)搖原審判決認(rèn)定的事實(shí)基礎(chǔ),且證明原判決可能改判為其他判決。然而,鑒于在救濟(jì)程序方面中國(guó)大陸刑事訴訟法與臺(tái)灣的刑事訴訟法之間巨大的差別,借鑒的同時(shí),為了正確適用“新證據(jù)”需要完善其配套制度。首先要完善“新證據(jù)”的法律概念,關(guān)于未予收集、質(zhì)證的證據(jù)僅限定在沒(méi)有調(diào)查可能性而未經(jīng)收集和未予質(zhì)證的證據(jù)才能夠成為“新證據(jù)”。啟動(dòng)刑事再審的主體方面,應(yīng)當(dāng)取消法院自主啟動(dòng)再審的權(quán)利,明確檢察院的抗訴啟動(dòng)再審的效力,賦予被告人和檢察官同等的再審申請(qǐng)權(quán)。新證據(jù)分為有利于被告人的新證據(jù)和不利于被告人的新證據(jù)。用于申請(qǐng)不利于被告人的新證據(jù),其顯著性應(yīng)當(dāng)受到更嚴(yán)格的限制,在可能改變的量刑比較小或雖可能改變罪名卻可能不必改變量刑時(shí),認(rèn)定該新證據(jù)不夠顯著,因此不啟動(dòng)再審。在有利于被告人的再審申請(qǐng)啟動(dòng)再審后,嚴(yán)格遵循“再審不加刑”原則。無(wú)論是哪一種新證據(jù),在法院認(rèn)定其符合新證據(jù)要求后,控辯雙方就應(yīng)當(dāng)擁有閱卷權(quán)。此外,要以法律形式明確規(guī)定新證據(jù)的偵查程序和審查程序。
[Abstract]:As the only special relief procedure of Chinese criminal procedure law, criminal retrial bears the burden of balancing the purpose of criminal procedure. It is necessary to find the truth and maintain the stability of law. Justice is not only embodied in the justice of substantive law, but also requires procedural justice. Only in this way can we better maintain the stability of the law. Thus, the initiation process of the criminal retrial becomes the fulcrum of this balance. We must be in the middle of the lever. The new evidence of starting the criminal retrial plays a vital role in the criminal retrial initiation procedure, and it is also a breakthrough in perfecting the criminal retrial initiation procedure, because this problem sets the substantive law, the procedural law, In Taiwan's unique criminal procedure structure, there are some unique opinions on this issue, which holds that "new evidence" should have two elements of "brand-new" and "significant". There is something to be learned from it. Evidence with a brand new character refers to evidence that has not been investigated by a court of first instance without knowing it. Evidence with significance means that it is clearly sufficient to shake the factual basis of the determination of the original trial judgment, However, in view of the huge difference between the criminal procedure law of the mainland of China and the criminal procedure law of Taiwan, we can learn from it at the same time. In order to apply "new evidence" correctly, we need to perfect its supporting system. First, we should perfect the legal concept of "new evidence". The evidence of cross-examination is limited to the evidence that has no possibility of investigation and has not been collected or cross-examined in order to become "new evidence"... the right of the court to initiate the retrial on its own initiative should be abolished, as far as the subject of initiating the criminal retrial is concerned, Defining the effectiveness of the procuratorate's protest to initiate the retrial, giving the accused and the prosecutor the same right to apply for retrial. The new evidence is divided into new evidence in favor of the defendant and new evidence against the defendant, and used to apply for new evidence against the defendant, Its significance should be subject to more stringent restrictions, finding that the new evidence is not significant enough when the sentencing that may be changed is relatively small or when the charges may be changed but the sentence may not have to be changed, Therefore, do not initiate a retrial. After the application for retrial in favor of the accused is initiated, the principle of "retrial without additional penalty" is strictly followed. No matter what kind of new evidence it is, after the court determines that it meets the new evidentiary requirements, In addition, the investigation procedure and examination procedure of the new evidence should be clearly stipulated in the form of law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 楊建廣;王學(xué)成;;刑事再審程序改革研究[J];河北法學(xué);2007年08期

2 張璐;;國(guó)外刑事再審程序?qū)ξ覈?guó)的借鑒意義[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2008年03期

3 陳瑞華;刑事再審程序研究[J];政法論壇;2000年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：1504875