Newsletter
The Ruling of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court Dated Jan. 27, 2021 The scope of the Supreme Court's review when defendants appeal the charges they are guilty of
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Criminal Speedy Trial Act ("CSTA"), the public prosecutor or private prosecutor is entitled to appeal only a decision of acquittal of the second instance that upholds the acquittal rendered in the first instance, on the grounds that the law applied in the judgment is inconsistent with the Constitution, or the judgment contradicts an interpretation of the Judicial Yuan or a precedent. If the public prosecutor or private prosecutor is entitled to appeal an acquittal ad infinitum, the defendant may have to endure more anxiety, which would defy the legislative intent of ensuring fair, legitimate and speedy criminal trials. An acquittal rendered in the second instance, upholding the first-instance decision, not only specifies the charges in the holding but also the charges in the reasoning of the judgment that constitute the same offenses and therefore are not in the scope of the acquittal in the holding.
However, Paragraph 2 of Article 348 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that relevant parts of a judgment partially appealed are considered appealed. Therefore, even if the defendant partially appeals a guilty judgment, the other offenses in the reasoning that constitute the same offenses in the holding and therefore are not in the scope of the acquittal in the holding, are considered appealed. If the Supreme Court finds merits in the appeal filed by the defendant, it would usually reverse and remand the case, including the offenses the defendant was found not guilty of in the reasoning instead of the holding. The defendant may then face a more unfavorable decision by the lower court after the appeal, which defies the purpose of allowing the defendant to appeal in his or her own interests.
Consequently, for offenses the defendant is found not guilty of in the reasoning instead of the holding in both the first and second instances, if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court by the public prosecutor or private prosecutor, the court would dismiss it by Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the CSTA. On the other hand, if the defendant appeals the conviction in his or her own interest, the offenses that the defendant is found not guilty of in the reasoning instead of the holding would be considered appealed as well. These offenses will be in the purview of the Supreme Court's review and a more unfavorable decision could be rendered, which would be unjust.
Recently, most judges in the Supreme Court have noticed that the above contravenes the purpose of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the CSTA and could be punitive to the defendants who appeal. The judges thus petitioned the Grand Chamber for an alternate interpretation.
The Grand Chamber subsequently rendered a legal interpretation in Ruling 109-Tai-Shang-Da-No. 3426, dated Jan. 27, 2021, stating: "In cases with multiple offenses but are prosecuted with one offense by the public prosecutor and where the defendant is found not guilty of the subsumed offenses in the reasoning instead of the holding, when the Defendant appeals against the conviction, those subsumed offenses should not fall into the scope of the Supreme Court's review." The reasoning is as follows:
1. The purpose of appealing to the Supreme Court is to make legal interpretations consistent and correct errors that occurred at the lower court level. Therefore, to protect the right for the appellant to partially appeal, except for ex officio appeals, if the public prosecutor or the private prosecutor does not continue the prosecution or the defendant does not appeal, there is no need for the Supreme Court to initiate a trial and correct errors.
2. The upholding of an acquittal in the second instance in Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the CSTA includes the offenses in the reasoning instead of the holding that the defendant is found not guilty of. Therefore, if the defendant appeals those offenses while the public prosecutor does not appeal and the appeal is deemed to have merits, those offenses will be considered appealed as well under the principle of indivisible judgment and appeal and be remanded, infringing the defendant's right to partially appeal, and right to a fair and speedy trial. Compared to where the public prosecutor violates Article 9 of the CSTA and the appeal is dismissed, making it a final and binding decision, it would seem like a punishment for the defendant who appeals.
3. As a special provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the CSTA should be applied first. Considering the legislative intent of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the CSTA and to maintain consistency between legal systems, protect the right to partially appeal and the penal power of the state, when the public prosecutor does not appeal against the offenses in the reasoning instead of the holding that the defendant is found not guilty of, those offenses should not be in the scope of the Supreme Court's review and transferred to the Supreme Court under the principle of indivisible judgment and appeal, and the decision should be final and binding once the appeal period expires. When the Supreme Court reverses the decision and remands the case, it is not necessary for those offenses to be reversed and remanded.
4. Considering legal stability and to respect the parties' right to decide the subject to appeal, if the public prosecutor has no intent to appeal against the offenses in the reasoning instead of the holding that the defendant is not guilty of and excludes them from the subject to appeal, those offenses clearly should not be in the scope of the Supreme Court's review. This is the only way to observe the purpose of discretionary review of the Supreme Court and protect the defendant from an unexpected judgment.