[證據法專欄]未尋獲屍體的殺人案
犯後證據after-the-fact conduct evidence
加拿大最高法院：湮滅證據的行為可以作為被告主觀犯意的推論依據
Ms. Jordan失蹤，被告即同居人Mr. Calnen辯稱他們發生肢體爭吵，喬丹自己摔下樓梯意外而死。
被告稱因當時有施用毒品，故不願意報警，遂將屍體藏在樹林中，後來又將屍體燒掉，因為喬丹生前曾說若死掉想火葬。警方找到死者的紙條和一些無法辨識的骨頭。
檢察官起訴殺人罪及毀損屍體罪。被告否認殺人罪。一審陪審團判決2罪名均成立。二審法院撤銷原判決，認為本件事證至多構成「過失致死」。
最高法院5名大法官一致決撤銷二審判決，維持一審判決。
首先，法律從未限制「犯後證據」不得做為證據，「犯後證據」也是間接證據的一種，藉由常識、經驗法則、邏輯的推論演繹，可以作為認定事實的依據。
就證據能力（admissible）而言，只要證據與待證事實具有關連性即可，而「關連性」係指：當存有這個證據，比沒有這個證據「更有可能證實」事發經過即可。因此，「犯後證據」當然具有證據能力，得進入法庭使用。
證據力方面，雖然被告對於犯後證據可以提出多種解釋（他當時吸毒或者很慌張），但審判者本來就可以自行認定何種說明較為合理，不會因此喪失證據力。但是為了避免誤會，法官應告知陪審團必須將被告的各種說法均納入考量範圍。
縱使沒有物理證據，只要綜合所有證據足以滿足整個（對犯意的）推理過程，這個推論就是可接受的。
縱使沒有物理證據，只要綜合所有證據足以滿足整個（對犯意的）推理過程，這個推論就是可接受的。
本案檢察官在極端的狀況下起訴，依靠的證據是被告的供述（湮滅證據）以及紙條（紀錄被害人曾被毆打）。至於湮滅屍體究竟是出於何種意圖，即交由審判者決定。
本件是非常精彩且重要的判決，值得一讀。
After‑the‑fact conduct encompasses what the accused both said and did after the offence charged in the indictment was allegedly committed and it is highly context and fact specific. After‑the‑fact conduct is circumstantial evidence and like other forms of circumstantial evidence, it allows a fact finder to draw particular inferences based on a person’s words or actions. A range of inferences may be drawn from the after‑the‑fact conduct evidence but in order to draw inferences, the decision maker relies on logic, common sense, and experience. It will be for the jury or judge to determine which inferences they accept and the weight they ascribe to them. When evidence is admissible for one purpose, but not for another, the finder of fact, whether judge or jury, needs to be mindful of and respectful of its permissible and impermissible uses. In such cases, a specific instruction to a jury that certain evidence has a limited use or is of no probative value on a particular issue is required.
The absence of supporting physical evidence does not, as a general rule, make the inference sought speculative. If the totality of the evidence satisfies the chain of reasoning for a particular inference, then that inference is available — regardless of whether supporting physical evidence is part of the evidentiary record.
This case, however, would be very close to the line when it came to determining whether the Crown met its ultimate burden of establishing each constituent element of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no evidence as to the cause of death other than the accused’s statement and his after‑the‑fact conduct. The case was based on circumstantial evidence and the jury was asked to engage in inferential reasoning and there were reasonable inferences other than murder which could be drawn from the evidence.
留言
張貼留言