摘要： 刑民交叉案件中刑事言词笔录在民事诉讼中的使用不仅实践样态复杂,而且实务界的做法和理论界的观点也存在分歧。从证据法理和实务适用便利的双重角度考量,刑事言词笔录应该归属于报道性公文书证。陈述人是否出庭以及刑事言词笔录是否经过生效刑事裁判认定并非其证据资格条件,而应以相关性作为证据资格的判断标准。从防止刑事言词笔录效力在民事诉讼中扩张、保障当事人质证权的角度考量,法官对刑事言词笔录的形式证明力可适用推定规则,而对于实质证明力则需要通过民事质证程序,例外情形可通过替代当庭质证的方法进行审查,在此基础上依据心证认定。双方当事人均负有证明刑事言词笔录内容的具体举证责任,提出异议的一方当事人只需动摇法官心证即可,无须达到推翻刑事言词笔录内容的程度。

关键词: 刑民交叉案件, 刑事言词笔录, 报道性公文书证, 实质证明力

Abstract: The use of criminal verbal transcripts in the intersection of criminal and civil cases is not only complex in judicial practice, but also divided in practices and academics.From the perspective of both the theory of evidence law and the convenience of judicial practice, the criminal verbal transcripts should be classfied into reportorial public document.Whether the party or the witness appears in court and whether the reliability of criminal verbal transcripts has been determined by criminal judgment are not the qualification of criminal verbal transcripts in civil procedure.Relevance should be the only standard of qualification of criminal verbal transcripts in civil procedure.In order to prevent the expansion of the effectiveness of criminal verbal transcripts in civil procedure and protect the parties' right to cross examination, the presumption rule can be applied to the formal weight of criminal verbal transcripts.While the substantive weight of criminal verbal transcripts is the subject of the judge's discretionary evaluation of evidence, which should be examined through the civil cross examination procedure or other replaced ways.In this process, both parties need to bear the concrete burden of proof to prove the contents of the criminal verbal transcripts.The party who raises the objection only needs to shake the judge's temporary evaluation, and does not need to overturn the contents of the criminal verbal transcripts.

Key words: Intersection of Criminal and Civil Cases, Criminal Verbal Transcripts, Reportorial Public Document, Substantive Weight of Evidence