Corpus Delicti
In general
• The corpus delicti rule states that a confession alone is insufficient to prove that a crime has been committed . . . .
Fancil v. State, 966 N.E.2d 700, 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied(citing Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. 1999))
See Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003)(citing Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 111 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999))(“Our corpus delicti rule holds that a crime may not be proven based solely on a confession.”)
See also Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003))(“[W]e note that our corpus delicti rule holds that a crime may not be proven based solely on a confession.”)
See also Fowler v. State, 900 N.E.2d 770, 775 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)(citing Malinski v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1071, 1086 (Ind. 2003))(“The corpus delicti rule provides that a crime may not be proved based solely on a confession.”)
• [I]ndependent evidence of the crime is required.
LeFlore v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Johnson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1134, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied)
See Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. 1999))(“[T]he State must provide independent evidence that the offense was committed.”)
Purpose and rationale
• The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to prevent conviction for a crime that did not occur.
Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675, 684 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 981 (2010)(citing Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 111 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999))
Cf. LeFlore v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Johnson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1134, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied)(“The corpus delicti requirement seeks to prevent the admission into evidence of a defendant's confession to a crime that never occurred.”)
• There must be some other proof of the crime in order to prevent convictions upon confessions to crimes which never occurred.
Williams v. State, 837 N.E.2d 615, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 111 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999))
Definitions and interpretation of corpus delicti
• One of the important rules of evidence in criminal cases is that which requires proof of the corpus delicti. Literally defined this term means “the body of the offense,” or “the substance of the crime.”
Justin Miller, The Criminal Act, in Legal Essays in Tribute to Orrin Kip McMurray 469, 478 (Max Radin & Alexander M. Kidd eds., 1935)(footnotes omitted)
• The phrase reflects the simple principle that a crime must be proved to have occurred before anyone can be convicted for having committed it.
Black’s Law Dictionary ? (10th ed. 2014)
Admissibility of confessions
• In Indiana, to support the introduction of a defendant's confession into evidence, the corpus delicti of the crime must be established by independent evidence of both (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury and (2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury.
Williams v. State, 837 N.E.2d 615, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 111 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999))
See West v. State, 755 N.E.2d 173, 182 n. 5 (Ind. 2001)(citing Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412, 424-25 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 (1998))(“In order for a confession to be introduced into evidence in Indiana, this rule provides that independent evidence must establish (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury, and (2) someone's criminal act as the cause of the injury.”)
See also Rickey v. State, 661 N.E.2d 18, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied(citing Scott v. State, 632 N.E.2d 761, 766 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994))(“To admit a confession into evidence, the corpus delicti of the crime must be established.”)
See also Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. 1999)(citing Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412, 424-25 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 (1998))(“[A]dmission of a confession requires some independent evidence of the crime including evidence of the specific kind of injury and evidence that the injury was caused by criminal conduct.”)
• [T]his evidence need not prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely “provide an inference that a crime was committed.”
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447-48 (Ind. 1999)(quoting Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412, 425 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 (1998))
Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 214 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(quoting Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447-48 (Ind. 1999))
LeFlore v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Johnson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1134, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied)(“This evidence need not prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the evidence must merely provide an inference that a crime was committed.”)
See Rickey v. State, 661 N.E.2d 18, 23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied(citing Regan v. State, 590 N.E.2d 640, 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992))(“Each element of the crime need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the corpus delicti; independent evidence from which an inference may be drawn that a crime was committed in connection therewith is sufficient.”)
See also Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied(quoting Stevens v. State, 691 N.E.2d 412, 424-25 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021 (1998))(“The independent evidence supporting the corpus delicti need not preclude every possible explanation of the circumstances.”)
• Such inference may be established through circumstantial evidence.
Williams v. State, 837 N.E.2d 615, 617-18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Sweeney v. State, 704 N.E.2d 86, 112 (Ind.1998), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1035 (1999))
See LeFlore v. State, 823 N.E.2d 1205, 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied(citing Johnson v. State, 785 N.E.2d 1134, 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied)(“This inference may be established by circumstantial evidence.”)
See also Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447-48 (Ind. 1999))(“[T]he inference of a crime may be established by circumstantial evidence.”)
See also Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied(citing Jones v. State, 701 N.E.2d 863, 866 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998))(“Circumstantial evidence may be the sole means of establishing the corpus delicti.”)
• The corpus delicti need not be established prior to admission of the confession so long as the totality of independent evidence presented at trial establishes it.
Winters v. State, 727 N.E.2d 758, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied(citing Morgan v. State, 544 N.E.2d 143, 146 (Ind. 1989), reh’g denied)
See Shanabarger v. State, 798 N.E.2d 210, 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied(citing McManus v. State, 541 N.E.2d 538, 539-40 (Ind. 1989))(“The State is also not required to prove the corpus delicti by independent evidence prior to the admission of a confession, provided the totality of independent evidence presented at trial establishes it.”)
See also Hawkins v. State, 884 N.E.2d 939, 945 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied(citing Weida v. State, 693 N.E.2d 598, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), reh’g denied, trans. denied)(“We look to the totality of the independent evidence throughout the course of the trial to determine if such an inference has been established.”)
Cf. Smith v. State, 339 N.E.2d 118, 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975), reh’g denied(citing Thomas v. State, 321 N.E.2d 194, 195 (Ind. 1975))(“Either before or after an extrajudicial confession is admitted in evidence, there must be evidence independent of the confession to establish that the specific crime charged in the indictment or information was committed by someone at the time and place alleged.”)
When a defendant confesses to several crimes within a single criminal episode: In general
• [W]here a defendant confesses to several crimes of varying severity within a single criminal episode, strict and separate application of the corpus delicti rule to each offense adds little to the ultimate reliability of the confession once independent evidence of the principal crimes is introduced.
Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990)
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)(quoting Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990))
Owens v. State, 732 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind. 2000)(quoting Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990))
• In such a case[,] the confession stands as direct evidence of each crime, even those not separately corroborated, if the independent evidence establishes the corpus delicti of the principal crime or crimes.
Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990)
• Under these circumstances, a confession to other crimes in the same episode is admissible if there is independent evidence of the principal offense.
Owens v. State, 732 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind. 2000)(citing Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999))
E.g., Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)(“The confession was admissible without independent evidence of the abuse of the corpse, given that there was ample independent evidence of the principal crime of murder, to which [the defendant] also confessed.”)
When a defendant confesses to several crimes within a single criminal episode: Interpretation of “criminal episode”
• There is no case law [explicitly] interpreting the definition of “criminal episode” in the corpus delicti context, but a recent Court of Appeals decision explained the meaning of “criminal episode” in the sentencing context.
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)
• “[E]pisode means an occurrence or connected series of occurrences and developments which may be viewed as distinctive and apart although part of a larger or more comprehensive series.”
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)(quoting Flynn v. State, 702 N.E.2d 741, 749 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), reh’g denied, trans. denied)(alteration in the original)
• IC 35-50-1-2(b) defines an episode of criminal conduct as “a connected series of offenses that are closely related in time, place, and circumstance.”
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)(quoting IC 35-50-1-2(b))
• We are not convinced that a separation of several hours ends the criminal episode when the defendant is still in the house with the victim's body and is attempting to cover up the crime by calling co-workers and friends to tell them the victim is sick.
Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 448 (Ind. 1999)
Applicability
• Here, a confession never occurred. . . . When a confession is not at issue, the corpus delicti rule does not apply.
Lawson v. State, 803 N.E.2d 237, 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied
• The corpus delicti rule does not apply to evidence of other crimes permitted by Evidence Rule 404(b). The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to prevent conviction for a crime that did not occur. That purpose does not apply to evidence of crimes offered under Rule 404(b) to establish motive or intent because there is no danger of conviction for those crimes. Moreover, the corpus delicti rule does not apply here because admission under Evidence Rule 404(b) does not require proof sufficient for conviction.
Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675, 684 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 562 U.S. 981 (2010)(internal citation omitted)
• For more information about Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), please review Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.