刑事訴訟法第159條之4第1款雖已明文公文書為傳聞例外，然因其所記載內容具有證人審判外陳述之本質，在司法院釋字第582號解釋保護刑事被告對質詰問權的要求下，是否得僅因公文書記載，即得限制被告對質詰問權，立法者並未明確交代。本文於參考美國對質條款沿革後，主張應以傳聞陳述是否具證明性特徵以及陳述之主要目的，作為其證據能力之審查標準。而在確認傳聞例外未必為對質例外後，關於公文書之證據能力判斷，本文乃以公證書為例，指出應以記載內容是否具證明性特徵為區分，如其記載屬非證明性傳聞，即可以傳聞例外作為其證據能力之依據；惟如其記載內容屬於證明性傳聞，即必須踐行對質程序才可以該記載內容作為認定犯罪事實之基礎。

Article 159-4, Subparagraph 1 of Criminal Procedure Code provides that official document is hearsay exception, however, as the Judicial Interpretation of No. 582 mandates confrontation protection, it is unclear whether the public document in Subparagraph 1 of Article 159-4 of the Criminal Procedure Code could restrict the criminal defendant’s right to confront. After reviewing the developments of the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, this study suggests that the admissibility of out-of-court statements should be decided upon the main purpose as well as the testimonial nature of the out-of-court statements. While a hearsay exception may not necessarily be a confrontation exception, the admissibility of the official document, as exemplified by the notarial document, depends upon if the out-of-court statement is testimonial. When the out-of-court statement is non-testimonial, it is admissible if it qualifies as a hearsay exception. On the contrary, it must satisfy the Confrontation Clause to be admissible at a criminal trial as it is testimonial.