corpus delicti

In order to convict of serious crimes of violence, then capital offenses, independent proof was required that someone had indeed inflicted the violence, the so-called corpus delicti. Once the existence of the crime was established, however, the guilt of the accused could be based on his own otherwise uncorroborated confession.

Defined by the Supreme Court in - Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147 (1954).

The body of the offense. The offense itself, as distinguished from the participation of any person therein. Thus, the corpus delicti of homicide is that a person has died by violence, not mere-' ly that he has died (43 Miss. 472), though the weight of authority is that the mere fact that a building has been burned is the corpus delicti of arson (29 Ga. 105; 33 Miss. 347. Contra, 76 Ala. 42). The proof of a charge in criminal cases involves the proof of two distinct propositions: First, that the act itgelf was done; and second, that it was done "by the person or persons charged, and by none other — in other words, proof of a corpus delicti, and the identity of the person or persons. lETS 111. 589; 150 111. 186. CORPUS HUMANUM NON RECIPIT aestimationem. A human body is not susceptible of appraisement. Hob. 59. CORPUS JURIS CANONICI (Lat. the body of the canon law). The name given to the collections of the decrees and canons of the Roman church. See "Canon Law." CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS (Lat. the body of the civil law). The collection comprising the Institutes, the Pandects or Digest, the Code and the Novels of Justinian. See those several titles, and also "Civil Law," for fuller information. The name is said to have been first applied to this collection early in the seventeenth century. CORPUS PRO CORPORE (Lat.) In old records. Body for body. A phrase expressing the liability of manucaptors. 3 How. St. Tr. 110.

The body of the offence; the essence of the crime. It is a general rule not to convict unless the corpus delicti can be established, that is, until the fact that the crime has been actually perpetrated has been first proved. Hence, on a charge of homicide, the accused should not be convicted unless the death be first distinctly proved, either by direct evidence of the fact or by inspection of the body; Best, Pres. §201; 1 Stark. Ev. 575. See 6 C & P. 176; 2 Hale, P. C. 290; Whart. Cr. Ev. § 324. Instances have occurred of a person being convicted of having killed another, who, after the supposed criminal has been put to death for the supposed offence, has made his appearance alive. The wisdom of the rule is apparent; but it has been questioned whether, in extreme cases, it may not be competent to prove the basis of the corpus delicti by presumptive evidence; 3 Benth. Jud. Ev. 234; Wills, Cir. Ev. 105; Best, Pres. § 204; 3 Greenl. Ev. 30. In cases of felonious homicide, the corpus delicti consists of two fundamental and necessary facts: first, the death; and secondly, the existence of criminal agency as its cause; Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472. A like analysis would apply in the case of any other crime. When the body of a murdered man was In the ashes with the body were like the trousers that a certain man wore, and that a slate pencil found there was identical with one he carried about him, was competent evidence to establish the identity of the body; State v. Martin, 47 S. 0. 87, 25 S. B. 113. The presumption arising from the possession of the fruits of crime recently after its commission, which in all cases is one of fact rather than of law, Is occasionally so strong as to render unnecessary any direct proof of the corpus delicti. Thus, to borrow an illustration from Mr. Justice Maule, if a man were to go into the London docks quite sober, and shortly afterwards were to be found very drunk, staggering out of one of the cellars, in which above a million gallons of wine are stowed, "I think," says the learned Judge, "that this.would be reasonable evidence that the man had stolen some of the wine in the cellar, though no proof were given that any particular vat had been broached and that any wine had actually been missed." Dears. 284; 1 Tayl. Ev. g 122. In this case it was proved that a prisoner indicted for larceny was seen coming out of the lower room of a warehouse in the London docks, in the floor above which a large quantity of pepper was deposited, and where he had no business to be. He was stopped by a constable, who suspected him from the bulky state of his pockets, and said, "I think there is something wrong about you;" upon which the prisoner said, "I hope you will not be hard upon me;" and then threw a quantity of pepper out of his pocket on the ground. The witness stated that he could not say whether any pepper had been stolen, nor that any pepper had been missed; but that which was found upon the prisoner was of like description with the pepper in the warehouse. It was held by all the judges that the prisoner, upon these facts, was properly convicted of larceny. The corpus delicti in arson consists in proof of the burning and of criminal agency in causing it; Spears v. State, 92 Miss. G13, 46 South. 166, 1G L. R. A. (N. S.) 285. A confession alone ought not to be considered suflicient proof of the corpus delicti; Springfellow v. State, 26 Miss. 157, 59 Am. Dec. 247; People v. Hennessey, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 147; Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320, 45 S. E. 376, (58 L. R. A. 33. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence; Dimmick v. U. S., 135 Fed. 2.".7, 70 C. C. A. 141; State v. Cillis, 73 S. C. 318, 53 S. E. 4S7, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 571, 114 Am. St. Rep. 95, 6 Ann. Cas. 993. CORPUS JURIS CANONICI (Lat. the body of the canon law). The name given to the collections of the decrees and canons of the Roman church. See Canon Law.

The body of a crime. The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down.

In a derivative sense, the substance or foundation of a crime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed. People v. Dick, 37 Cal. 281; White . State, 49 Ala. 347; Goldman v. Co.m., 100 Va-865, 42 S. E. 923; State v. Hand, 1 Marv. (Del.) 545, 41 Atl. 192; State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 441.
Defined under Corpus in Black's Law Dictionary.

The body of a erime. The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e. g., the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down, Inaderivative sense, the substance or foundation of a erime; the substantial fact that a crime has been committed. Corpus humanum non recipit sesti-

Lat. The body, substance or foundation of an offence. The substantial and fundamental fact of its having been committed. Lord Stowell, 1 Haggard's C, i?. 105. Best on Presumpturns, 269, § 201, e^ seq,