Corpus delicti

Last updated

Corpus delicti (Latin for "body of the crime"; plural: corpora delicti), in Western law, is the principle that a crime must be proven to have occurred before a person could be convicted of having committed that crime.

Contents

For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that property has been stolen. Likewise in order for a person to be tried for arson, it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti" as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed".

In common law systems, the concept has its outgrowth in several principles. Many jurisdictions hold as a legal rule that a defendant's out-of-court confession alone, is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. [1] A corollary to this rule is that an accused cannot be convicted solely upon the testimony of an accomplice. Some jurisdictions also hold that without first showing independent corroboration that a crime has occurred, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of the defendant's statement.

Requirements

In general, all corpus delicti requires at a minimum:

  1. The occurrence of the specific injury; and
  2. some criminal act as the source of the injury.

For example:

In essence corpus delicti of crimes refers to evidence that a violation of law occurred; no literal 'body' is needed.

Murder cases

When a person disappears and cannot be contacted, many police agencies initiate a missing person case. If, during the course of the investigation, detectives believe that they have been murdered, then a "body" of evidentiary items, including physical, demonstrative and testimonial evidence, must be obtained to establish that the missing person has indeed died, and that their death was by homicide, before a suspect can be charged with murder.[ citation needed ] The clearest evidence in these cases is the physical body of the deceased. However, in the event that a body is not present or has not yet been discovered, it is possible to prove a crime took place if sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. [2] For example, the presence at a missing person's home of spilled human blood, identifiable as that person's, in sufficient quantity to indicate exsanguination, demonstrates—even in the absence of a corpse—that the possibility that no crime has occurred, and the missing person is merely missing, is not reasonably credible.[ citation needed ]

See also

References

  1. See, e.g., Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 497 n.14, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963 (citing to corpus delicti rule and stating: "For the history and development of the corroboration requirement, see 7 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed. 1940], §§ 2070–2071; Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant's Confession, 103 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 638–649 [1955]. For the present scope and application of the rule, see 2 Underhill, Criminal Evidence [5th ed. 1956], §§ 402–403. For a comprehensive collection of cases, see Annot., 45 A. L. R.2d 1316 [1956].")
  2. B. Berg, Criminal Investigation, McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages, 2007