On the Evidential Attributes of Accident Investigation Reports in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

In criminal proceedings, accident investigation reports, as formal legal documents that encapsulate findings of accident facts, professional technical analysis, and responsibility allocation, play an indispensable role in the determination of criminal facts and the allocation of criminal liability. However, although the 2021 Judicial Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law has expressly granted them evidential qualification, they have never been formally incorporated into the eight categories of legal evidence stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. This legislative gap has given rise to persistent disputes in academic circles regarding their attribute positioning and has resulted in inconsistent review standards in judicial practice. To address this issue, this paper conducts a systematic comparative analysis of the essential differences between accident investigation reports and traditional evidence types such as documentary evidence, witness testimony, expert opinions, and inspection records, thereby revealing their unique attribute as a composite evidence collection. Although the independent evidence theory advocated by some scholars proposes adding accident investigation reports as a new statutory evidence type, China's criminal evidence review rules have already developed a comprehensive and mature system. The diverse components of accident investigation reports can be decomposed and classified into existing legal evidence categories; forcibly creating a new evidence type would merely increase judicial application costs and undermine legal stability. Accordingly, in judicial practice, the rigid "either-or" classification approach should be abandoned, and a layered review mechanism should be established—reviewing the objectivity of descriptive content in accordance with the standards for inspection records, verifying the professionalism of evaluative opinions by reference to the rules governing expert opinions, and focusing on the review of procedural legality and logical rationality with respect to the responsibility determination portion.