析法院的有限变更指控罪名权

人民法院为正确适用刑罚,实现惩罚犯罪的目的,在判决时并不局限于控方指控的罪名去认定最终的罪名。我国新刑事诉讼法虽然吸收了英美法系国家当事人主义的若干长处,但从总体上看仍然属于职权主义的诉讼构造,①在该模式下,法官拥有极大的自主权,对证据的取舍、事实的认定及法律的适用都由法官自由判断,法官直接变更指控罪名也成为审判权的当然组成部分。一、法院自行变更指控罪名的现状我国法院直接改变指控罪名的现象,概括起来有以下几种情形:1.法院对控方指控的事实予以认同,在肯定这一事实为定案根据的基础上直接变更罪名,即对被告人的行…     

公诉机关起诉了不属其管辖范围的案件,法院能否直接变更指控罪名?

编辑同志：审判实践中，曾出现这样的情况：检察机关直接受理的案件（如贪污案件）提起公诉后，法院经审理认定起诉书指控的被告人犯罪事实清楚，有充分的证据证明被告人的行为构成犯罪。但在案件定性上，法院认定的罪名与检察机关起诉指控的罪名不一致（如起诉指控被告人犯贪污罪，法院认定被告人犯盗窃罪），而检察机关始终坚持自己的定性。对此，一种意见认为，法院可以直接变更指控罪名，作出有罪判决。另一种意见认为，第一种意见的处理方式违反了刑事诉讼法关于案件管辖的规定，在此情形下，法院应仅就检察机关起诉指控的罪名进行认定…     

评人民法院变更指控罪名权

法院变更指控罪名权，是指法院在刑事案件庭审结束后，认为公诉机关对被告人指控的罪名与所指控的犯罪事实不相吻合时，享有直接以法院审理认定的罪名，对被告人作有罪判决的权力。我国刑事诉讼法无论在１９９６年修订前或是１９９６年修订后，均未对我国各级人民法院在判决时，是否享有变更指控罪名权作明确的规定。换言之，根据我国刑事诉讼法的相关规定，我国各级人民法院不享有变更指控罪名权。具体地说，即使被告人的行为确实触犯了刑法分则中的某一罪名，但只要公诉机关在起诉书中未以此罪名对被告人提出指控，人民法院审理后，也不应…     

指控罪名与被告触犯的罪名不一致时的审判

我国１９７９年刑事诉讼法第一百二十条规定，“在被告人最后陈述后，审判长宣布休庭，合议庭进行评议，根据已经查明的事实、证据和有关的法律规定，作出被告人有罪或者无罪，犯的什么罪，适用什么刑罚或者免除刑罚的判决。”从本条的规定可以看出，法院的定罪判决并未涉及到公诉机关指控的罪名，也不是判决检察院起诉的罪名能否成立，而完全是依据事实、证据和法律来判决被告人的罪名，这样一来，就可能会产生法院判决认定的罪名与检察院指控的罪名不一致的情况。比如检察院起诉的抢夺罪，而法院最后判决的却是抢劫罪。在以前的司法实践中…     

判决可以改变起诉罪名

最高人民法院《关于执行＜中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法＞若干问题的解释》第一百七十六条第 (二 )项规定 :起诉指控的罪名与人民法院审理认定的罪名不一致的 ,应当作出有罪判决。也就是说 :公诉机关以被告人构成甲罪名向法院提起指控 ,并未指控被告人犯有乙罪 ,而人民法院有权作出被告人构成乙罪名的判决。有人对此持异议 ,认为人民法院判决罪名必须与指控罪名相同 ,否则会产生“以审判职能代替了公诉职能”和“剥夺了被告人的辩护权”的弊端。［１］对此见解 ,我们不敢苟同。首先 ,对于“以审判职能代替了公诉职能”问题。人民法院作为国家审…     

检察机关起诉了属于法院管辖的告诉才处理的自诉案件,法院该如何处理?

编辑同志：　　在审判实践中，我们碰到这样的情况：检察机关就某案件向法院提起公诉后（如侮辱妇女案件），经法院审理认定起诉书指控的被告人的犯罪事实清楚，证据充分，足以证明被告人的行为构成犯罪。但在案件定性上，法院认定的罪名与检察机关起诉的罪名不一致（如起诉指控被告人犯侮辱妇女罪，法院认定被告人犯侮辱罪），而且法院认定的罪名又不属于检察机关的管辖范围，属于法院直接受理的告诉才处理的自诉案件。对此，一种意见认为，法院可以直接改变指控罪名，以侮辱罪作出有罪判决；另一种意见认为，此案属于人民法院直接受理的告…     

公诉变更问题研究——以刑事诉因变更制度为视角

刑事诉因变更制度具有制约起诉变更权、限定审判对象和保障辩护权的重要意义.我国现行制度框架内,对公诉变更问题中存在的指控事实和指控罪名随意变更问题,不仅缺乏相关的法律规制,而且有剥夺刑事被告人基本防御权之虞.英美和日本的诉因变更制度中对公诉和审判权行使范围的限制和对被告人防御权的保障值得我们借鉴和学习.     

法院变更指控罪名问题研究

目前,国内学术界对"当法院审理认定的罪名与控诉方的指控罪名不一致时,法院能否直接变更控诉方的指控罪名"这一问题存在广泛争议。本文运用比较分析的方法,在对英美法系和大陆法系两大法系的法院变更指控罪名的模式进行综合考察的同时,对"法院变更指控罪名"存在的正当性及其弊端进行了分析,并以此为基础对我国法院变更指控罪名的现状进行了反思。     

罪名从轻辩护及其限制性操作

由于无罪辩护面临的种种困境,辩护律师往往选择较指控罪名更轻的罪名进行辩护,而不再仅仅论证控方指控的罪名不能成立.罪名从轻辩护在实践中取得了良好的辩护效果,却在理论上饱受争议.在法院有权变更指控罪名的制度环境之下,辩护律师选择罪名从轻辩护具有某种不可避免性和有限的正当性,有利于减轻或免除被告人的刑事责任,在遵循事实成立无异议原则、事实范围同一性原则和被告人同意原则的前提下,可以更好地维护被告人的利益.     

法院可以变更指控罪名

在刑事司法实践中 ,有一种司空见惯但却招致颇多非议的现象 :合议庭通过法庭调查和辩论后 ,如果认为公诉机关对被告人的指控罪名与控诉的犯罪事实不符 ,法院通常径行判决变更指控罪名以对被告人进行定罪量刑。修正后的刑诉法对这种做法未置可否。１９９８年６月最高人民法院《关于执行〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第１７６条第２项明确规定 :“起诉指控的事实清楚 ,证据确实、充分 ,指控的罪名与人民法院审理认定的罪名不一致的 ,应当作出有罪判决。”换言之 ,从制度层面来看 ,法院直接变更指控罪名已经于法有据了。但长久…     

论"罪疑唯轻"原则下刑事被告之举证负担

罪疑唯轻是刑事法中的重要裁判原则,裁判者在犯罪事实存在疑问时必须作出有利于被告的裁判.如果公诉方不履行法定的证明责任,或者刑事被告提起"有事实根据的合理怀疑"使案件事实真伪不明时,裁判者应当遵守罪疑唯轻原则作出有利于刑事被告的判决."选择确定"本质上是罪疑唯轻原则例外,但刑事被告在选择确定中仍无需承担主观的举证责任,只承担客观的证明责任.在程序性事项上,除重大的影响刑事被告权利的事项外,罪疑唯轻无适用余地.     

The impact of judge–defendant communication on mental health court outcomes

Previous research has shown that mental health courts have been successful in reducing the rates of recidivism among mentally ill offenders. However, none of these studies, to date, have examined exactly what aspects of the courts reduce these rates of recidivism and what makes them successful. The current study utilized a sample of 291 mentally ill criminal offenders participating in a mental health court to examine whether those participants who were addressed by and communicated with the judge had a reduction in recidivism rates and the severity of new charges in comparison to those who did not. The hypotheses regarding greater judge–defendant communication and recidivism were not supported. This suggests that communication in and of itself is not sufficient to reduce recidivism. Future research of a qualitative nature is essential to identify if the frequency, tone, and valence of the communication results in improved outcomes. In addition, these results may indicate a necessity for more stringent training and guidelines for the maintenance of Mental Health Courts. Results of the current study suggested differences between genders, such that females were spoken to by the judge more frequently than were men.     

When crimes are joined at trial

In two experiments, subject-jurors read evidence from actual criminal cases, decided on the guilt of the defendant, and answered several additional questions. The defendant was accused of one charge (murder or rape) or two charges (both murder and rape). In both experiments, the defendant was more likely to be convicted of either crime if the two charges were joined in one trial. Trait ratings indicated that the defendant was perceived in a more negative way when standing trial on two offenses. The order in which the charges were heard had no effect, nor did instructions to subjects to judge the cases separately.Portions of this paper were presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Meeting in Cambridge, Massachusetts, October, 1981. The research was supported by a grant from NSF to Elizabeth Loftus.     

论中国刑事法官对被告的客观照料义务

1996年中国《刑事诉讼法》修改后确立的"抗辩式"庭审制度,因被告方庭前取证难、阅卷难,导致审判时举证、质证能力不足。在这种情况下,若仅仅强调法官的消极、形式中立,难以使被告认同最终判决。故有必要赋予法官庭审时对被告的客观照料义务,不仅履行其对被告的消极尊重,尚需实现其对被告的积极照料。且法官对被告适当的客观照料,并不会导致其中立地位的丧失,反而能实现积极与实质中立。其客观照料义务体现在对人证进行补充询问,引出有利被告的证据信息;依职权或申请调取有利被告的新证据;并在特殊条件下,庭外保全、调取、核实有利被告的证据,从而确保控辩双方庭审时的实质平等。     

The Economics of Bail Setting and Social Welfare

In most jurisdictions, there is a statutory preference for releasing on bail an accused in custody that has not yet been convicted unless the accused is charged with very serious offence like homicide. Nonetheless, the courts are vested with the powers to decide on the quantum of bail or to even refuse bail outright. To induce the defendant to surrender for trial [Lim, B.-T., & Quah, E. (1998). Economics of bail setting. Bulletin of Economic Research, 257–264] demonstrate that the bail quantum should be based on the expected cost of punishment and the probability of re-arrest if the defendant jumps bail. However, there are costs to society if the defendant absconds, which include, inter alia, the cost of re-arresting the defendant. In this paper, we derive the optimal bail quantum on the assumption that the probability of re-arrest and the penalty for absconding are chosen by the courts whose objective function is to minimize the sum of the expected harm to society and the net costs to law enforcement if the defendant jumps bail. The cost and benefit of being released on bail are examined. A model is proposed which may be useful to the court officials in bail setting as an effective means to secure the defendant's attendance at trial as well as to achieve social equity.     

Possession of cannabis legal for now

In two recent rulings the Ontario Court of Justice threw out charges of possession of cannabis contrary to section 4(I) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA). The courts found that the accused in each case had been charged with an offence not known to law. Parliament never re-enacted the CDSA section prohibiting simple possession of cannabis (marijuana) after it was struck down by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Parker case.     

Judges and Juries: The Defense Case and Differences in Acquittal Rates

Kalven and Zeisel's (1966 ) classic study, The American Jury, concluded that juries were "in revolt" from the law when they acquitted when judges would have convicted. Using data collected by the National Center for State Courts to examine jury decision making in four different communities, this article reexamines the question of the judge and jury's respective fidelity to the law and evidence by examining the influence on judge and jury of the defendant's evidence, his criminal record, and his reason for refusing to plead. No data can tell us definitively whether the judge is correct and the jury in error when they disagree, but the data analyzed in the present study can tell us whether the factors that move the jury and fail to move the judge are or are not consistent with the innocence of the accused.     

Exploring the Limits of the Judicialization of Urban Land Disputes in Vietnam

Economic and legal reforms have triggered waves of conflict over property rights and access to urban land in Vietnam. In this article I develop four epistemic case studies to explore the main precepts and practices that courts must negotiate to extend their authority over land disputes. Courts face a dilemma: Do they apply state laws that disregard community regulatory practices and risk losing social relevance, or apply community notions of situational justice that undermine rule formalism? I conclude that reforms designed to increase rule formalism in the courts may have the unintended consequence of reducing the capacity for judges to find lasting solutions to land disputes.     

Police accountability and the Irish law of evidence

Common law courts have differed on whether and to what extent an exclusionary rule should be used as a tool to impose standards on the police. The Irish courts have pursued an uncompromising approach in this area. Basing themselves on the imperative of upholding the constitutional rights of the accused, they have been willing to exclude relevant and cogent evidence on the basis that it was obtained by the police in breach of those rights. This article locates the Irish constitutional exclusionary rule in the broader context of the role of the law of evidence in police governance. Citing specific examples from the Irish legislation and case law, it shows how recent legislative interventions and some judicial hesitancy have fuelled inconsistent and contradictory trends. It concludes that there is now a pressing need for reflection on the respective roles of the legislature and the courts in this area.     

当下中国宪法司法化的路径与方法

法院适用法律必须解释法律,而解释法律又必须进行合宪解释,合宪解释是目前我国宪法在司法中适用的最好方式,是现行体制下我国宪法司法化的最佳路径。各级人民法院在民事、刑事和行政诉讼中审理每一起案件适用法律时都应当考虑到宪法,进行合宪解释。每一位法官都是合宪解释的主体,都享有法律解释权和宪法解释权,但这并不否定最高人民法院的最高司法解释权以及全国人大常委会对法律和宪法的最终解释权。法院通过合宪解释方式间接适用宪法,不必将宪法作为裁判依据而引用,但应当在裁判说理部分引用宪法条款。法院在合宪解释过程中发现法律明显违宪时,应当中止诉讼,逐级上报,由最高人民法院报送全国人大常委会处理。