“作证却免于强制出庭”抑或“免于强制作证”? 《刑事诉讼法》第188条第1款的法教义学分析  

To Testify but being Exempted from the Obligatory Appearance in Court or the Exemption from Obligatory Testification?A Dogmatic Interpretation of Paragraph 1 of Article 188 of Criminal Procedure Law

作　　者：李奋飞[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《中外法学》2015年第2期484-504,共21页Peking University Law Journal

基　　金：中国人民大学"明德青年学者计划"基金项目"刑事错案的制度性治理"(项目编号14XNJ003)支持

摘　　要：大多数法律人认为,《刑事诉讼法》第188条第1款应被解释为亲属证人"作证却免于强制出庭的权利"。本文基于法教义学的立场和方法,从第188条第1款存在的两种不同解释出发,论证了"作证却免于强制出庭的权利"并不能真正实现立法目的,也直接剥夺了作为被告人辩护权应有之义的对质权。第188条第1款应被解释为亲属证人"免于强制作证的权利",而非"作证却免于强制出庭的权利",即亲属证人在审前未向控方作证的,法庭不得强制其到庭作证。如其已在审前向控方作证,且符合出庭作证条件,经法院通知没有正当理由拒不出庭作证的,法院非但不能强制其出庭作证,还应将其庭前书面证言予以排除。Most lawyers hold that paragraph 1 of article 188 should be construed as that witnesses, who are relatives of the defendant, should “ testify, yet being exempted from the obligation to be forced to appear in court .” Based on the position and method of legal dogmatics, this article, stemming from the two different interpretations of first paragraph of article 188 of “ a right being exempted from the ob- ligation to testify” and “testify but have the right of being exempted from the obligation to appear in court ”, this demonstrates that the latter interpretation “ testify but have the right of being exempted from the obligation to appear in court ” not only fails to achieve the purpose of legislation, but also directly deprive the defendant of the confrontation right which is the natural part of his right to defend. Therefore, if the defendant＇s spouse, parents, children did not testify at trial, the court must not compel them to appear in court to testify. If they had testified at a pretrial hearing, but refused to testify in court without justifica- tion upon notice, although the court should not force them to testify, yet it should rule out their written pretrial testimony.

关 键 词：刑事诉讼法 第188条第1款 目的解释 亲属证人 对质权 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]