刑事訴訟法第159 條第1 項已明文排斥傳聞證據，故如檢方主張電子證據之真 實性，即應探求其證據能力之基礎，以保障被告之對質詰問權。以人的陳述為基 礎之電子證據證據能力判斷，是否得仿照美國法院引用聯邦證據規則第803(6)條商 業紀錄或是第803(8)條公務紀錄與報告等，作為電腦紀錄具證據能力之法理基礎， 而類推刑事訴訟法第159 條之4 第3 款之規定，以其不具供述性而肯認其證據能 力，非無疑義。本文在分析檢討美國相關傳聞法制發展之後，認為最高法院99 年 度台上字第408 號刑事判決以電子通訊紀錄不具供述性為由，肯認其內容不受傳聞 法則拘束而具證據能力，其主張並不正確，蓋非在緊急狀態下作成之陳述，其供 述性應可確立。

Paragraph 1 of Article 159 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly in-admits hearsay evidence. To protect the right to confront, prosecutors have to claim the rationale of the admissibility of electronic evidence. Whether hearsay exceptions of business record and computer record under FRE 803 supports to apply Section 3 of Article 159-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code in electronic evidence is questionable because the nature of it might not be non-testimonial. After analyzing relevant hearsay jurisprudence in the United States, this study claims that the Supreme Court decision of 99 Tai Sun 408 is incorrect since any out-of-court statement made under non-emergence situation is testimonial in nature.