海峡两岸刑诉法学者一般均认为,刑事诉讼法中的书证(以下简称书证)是以文书(广义)记载的内容作为证据。就此而言,两岸学者对书证内涵的理解是基本一致的。然而在书证的证据效力、外延及书证的形成过程等问题的阐释上,两岸学者几乎完全“分道扬镳”。台湾刑诉法学者另从“证据书类”的角度来认识书证,实际上认为书证是以“文书记载的陈述人对案件事实的陈述”这一“内容”来证明该案件事实真实性的证据。内地学者所理解的书证是案件事实发展过程中所遗留下来的客观存在,并且是凭其“存在或状态”来证明案件事实的,理应将之归入物证之列。如果内地学者仍然将其通常所指称的书证,定义为是以其记载的内容来证明案件事实的证据,这种定义方式是值得商榷的。 Criminal law scholars across the Taiwan Strait generally agree that the documentary evidence in the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “documentary evidence”) is based on the content of the document (broad sense) as evidence. In this regard, the understanding of the connotation of the documentary evidence by cross-Strait scholars is basically the same. However, on the interpretation of the evidence validity, denotation and the process of documentary evidence, the scholars in both sides of the strait are almost completely “parting ways”. Taiwan’s criminal law scholars also know the documentary evidence from the perspective of the “evidence class”, and actually think that the documentary evidence is based on the fact that the statement made by the person in the document “on the facts of the case” Evidence of factuality of the case. The documentary evidence as understood by mainland scholars is the objective existence left by the factual development of the case, and is based on its “existence or state” to prove the facts of the case. It should be classified as a material evidence. If mainland scholars still define their commonly used documentary evidence as evidence of the facts of the case on the basis of their contents, such a definition is debatable.