参考文献：
[1]罗书平.法院不是“量刑工具”——也谈法院能否改变指控罪名[J].中国律师,1999,(8).
[2]张步文,杨加明.不诉而审 无辩而判——“虹桥”案审判中的败笔之作[J].中国律师,1999,(6).
[3]（美）杰弗里·C·哈泽德等.美国民事诉讼法导论[M].张茂译.北京：中国政法大学出版社,1999,2.
[4][17]龙宗智.相对合理主义[C].北京：中国政法大学出版社1999,5-8.150.
[5][6][7]（日）田口守一.
刑事诉讼法[M].刘迪等译.北京:法律出版社2000,172. 172. 166.
[8]（台）陈朴生.刑事证据法[M].34-3.
[9]美国联邦刑事诉讼规则和证据规则[Z].卞建林译.北京:中国政法大学出版社1996,38.
[10]参见（台）陈朴生. 刑事证据法[M].35-36；（日）田口守一.
刑事诉讼法[M].刘迪等译.北京:法律出版社2000,172-173.
[11]（日）小野清一郎.犯罪构成要件理论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社1991,128.
[12][16]（法）卡斯东·斯特法尼等.法国刑事诉讼法精义[M].罗结珍译.北京:中国政法大学出版社1999,449.763-764.
[13][14]德国刑事诉讼法典[Z].李昌珂译.北京:中国政法大学出版社1995,107. 107.
[15]法国刑事诉讼法典[Z].余叔通、谢朝华译.北京:中国政法大学出版社1997,131.
Model and Reorientation: Study on the Relationship between Accusation and Trial
—— On The Judge Change The Charge
Xie You-Ping Wan Yi
(Southwest University of Political Science and law, Chongqing 400031)
Abstract: There are two models on the judge changing the charge in the world. The Litigant Adversary Doctrine adopts the model of restriction in the substance. The EX Officio Doctrine adopts the model of restriction in the procedure. China should draw on the experience of the Litigation Adversary Doctrine, and rebuild the model of the judge changing the charge in our country.
Key Words: The Ex Officio Doctrine The Litigation Adversary Doctrine Charge Count Restriction in the substance restriction in the procedure
