Jenny Chen
The Supreme Court rendered the 109-Tai-Shang-653 Decision of February 20, 2020 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that when the right of confrontation with a witness is exercised with the use of witnesses as the evidentiary method, whether or not the evidence investigation procedure is followed is irrelevant to the evidentiary admissibility and weight of the statements given by the witness during police interrogation, investigation and trial.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Defendant obtained and possessed a standard handgun with lethal effects and two bullets from his friend out of the criminal intent to unlawfully possess a standard handgun and bullets. The Defendant quarreled with X and Y. The Defendant foresaw that firing at the torso of another person with the standard handgun and the bullets could seriously damage the vital organs of the human body and cause death, but still held the handgun and struck X in the head with the bottom of the grip for several times, causing X to crouch down, and then fired one shot with the muzzle held against X’s right shoulder or neck, causing the bullet to penetrate into the body from below the right shoulder blade, eventually causing X to suffer massive pneumothorax and puncture wounds on right chest, right diaphragm and right abdomen, etc. After being hospitalized, X survived. With the efforts of local police officers to encourage the Defendant to come forward, the Defendant voluntarily explained what had happened in the police station. The original trial court held that the Defendant’s offense constituted attempted murder and possession of a handgun without approval.
According to the Decision, although the defendant’s right to confront a witnesses in a criminal case is a defensive litigation right protected by the Constitution and should not be deprived arbitrarily, still whether or not a lawful evidence investigation procedure is followed when witnesses serve as the evidentiary method has no relevance to the evidentiary admissibility and weight of the statements given by the witnesses in the course of police interrogation, investigation and trial.
This Decision further indicated that the original decision clearly explained that since the statements given by Witnesses X, Y, etc. during the police interrogation and investigation were legally admissible evidence for their compliance with Articles 159-2 and 159-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and individuals such as X all testified as witnesses with a signed oath in court during the first instance trial and were examined by the Appellant and his attorney, the Appellant’s right to confront Witness X and the other witnesses was protected at the first instance trial. Therefore, the original decision did not make an mistake in its application of law for adopting evidence since the statements of individuals such as X given during police interrogation and investigation which were unfavorable to the Appellant were legally appropriate admissible evidence and followed a lawful evidence investigation procedure. As for the subsequent change of earlier statements to those favorable to the Appellant during the first instance trial, probably because they sought to protect the Appellant or they no longer had a clear memory of what had happened a long time ago, such statements were not accepted in the original decision, which also provided detailed reasons. It was determined that the determination did not violate empirical and logical rules. The gist of the appeal, which accused the inappropriate adoption of evidence by the original trial court without basis, is not a legitimate reason for appealing to the third instance court.