International Open Access Journal Platform

醉驾型危险驾驶案中鉴定意见存在的问题及其改进措施 ——基于 63 份裁判文书的实证研究

Problems and Improvement Measures of Identifying Opinions in Drunk Driving Hazardous Driving Cases -An Empirical Study Based on 63 Judgment Documents

Criminal Justice Science & Governance / 2020,1(1): 66-77 / 2020-07-13 1051 1303

View Download PDF

• Authors: 史玲莉      陈鲜瑜*     
• Information:

  西南政法大学，重庆

• Keywords: Drunk driving; Dangerous driving crime; Expert opinion 醉酒驾驶；危险驾驶罪；鉴定意见
• Abstract: In the crime of drunk driving, the expert opinion of blood alcohol content has become the main basis for conviction. In the court interrogation, the driver and his defense attorney have also raised objections to the expert opinion, mainly including the procedure, method, subject and standard of application of the expert opinion, and the judge’s attitude towards the objection is mostly non adoptable or supportable. The main reasons are related to the authority of appraisal bodies and appraisal opinions, the inadequacy of the party’s argument on objections, the dependence of judges on appraisal opinions, and the slow and inadequate ideological transformation. Based on this, we should standardize the procedure of blood sample extraction and identification, strengthen the implementation of applicable norms for identification, standardize the regulation and management of identification institutions and experts, avoid the problem of integration of investigation and identification, and strengthen the transparency of identification procedures, which is conducive to better standardize the identification procedures and enhance the evidentiary capacity of expert opinions. 在醉驾型危险驾驶罪中，血液酒精含量的鉴定意见成为其定罪的主要依据，庭审质证中， 驾驶人员及其辩护律师也多围绕该鉴定意见提出异议，主要包括鉴定程序、鉴定方式、鉴定主体、 鉴定适用标准等方面提出异议，而法官最终对异议的态度也多为不予采纳和支持。究其主要原 因，与鉴定机构及鉴定意见的权威性，及当事人对异议的说理不足；法官对鉴定意见的依赖性， 及意识形态转变的缓慢与不到位等有关。基于此，规范血液样本的提取及鉴定程序，加强鉴定 适用规范的执行；规范对鉴定机构及鉴定人的规范与管理，避免侦鉴一体问题；加强鉴定程序 的公开透明化，有利于更好地规范鉴定程序，增强鉴定意见的证据能力。
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.35534/cjsg.0101006
• Cite: 史玲莉，陈鲜瑜．醉驾型危险驾驶案中鉴定意见存在的问题及其改进措施——基于 63 份裁判文书的实证研究［J］．刑事司法科学与治理，2020，1（1）：66-77．
  https://doi.org/10.35534/cjsg.0101006