论被告人庭前供述的证据能力

被告人翻供是我国刑事司法实践的一大难题,由于被告人庭前供述缺乏证据能力规则的约束,法官普遍以被告人庭前供述定案,这是导致我国冤假错案的一项重要原因。为此,有必要建立完善的被告人庭前供述的证据能力规则。国外在被告人庭前供述准入制度的设置上,存在传闻例外模式与直接言词模式;在庭前供述排除制度的设置上,存在正当程序模式与任意性模式。我国宜借鉴直接言词模式与任意性模式,在庭前供述与当庭供述一致时,庭前供述不具备证据能力;在庭前供述与当庭供述不一致时,庭前供述如果具备自愿性要件可以作为弹劾证据,只有同时具备自愿性与真实性要件时才可作为实质证据。

Evidence Capacity on the Defendant’s Pretrial Confession

Defendant retracted is a major problem in our judicial practice. Because the defendant’s pretrial confession lack of constraint of evidence capacity,judges generally finalized on pretrial confession. This is an important cause of miscarriages of justice. Therefore,it is necessary to establish the evidence capacity on the defendant’s pretrial confession. In other countries,there are hearsay exception mode and direct verbal mode on the set of access system,and there are due process mode and arbitrary mode on the set of excluded system. We should draw the direct verbal mode and arbitrary mode.When pretrial confession and trial confession are consistent,the former does not have the evidence capability. When pretrial confession and trial confession are inconsistent,the former can be used as impeachment evidence,and it can also be used as substantial evidence when it has voluntary and arbitrary elements.