Corpus delicti is a latin phrase, which literally means, "body of crime." In law, it is the principle that there must be evidence that a crime actually occurred before someone can be convicted of the crime.
The issue of a corpus delicti comes up when there is a confession to a crime. If someone confesses to a crime, that person cannot simply be arrested and charged for that crime. The police must first determine whether the crime actually occured. (You might think this is a strange scenario, but people falsely confess all the time!)
Most states have a rule that a defendant's confession, standing alone, is not enough to prove him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the defendant's statement may not even be admissible in court until the prosecution has first presented some other evidence that the crime occurred. This is called corroborating evidence.
As an example, let's say someone walks in to the police station and confesses that he killed a prostitute ten years ago. Based on the person's description of the crime (exactly when, where and how it occurred), the police would have to check old reports. They would check if there were any prostitutes killed in the time, place and manner described.
Or, if the body was never found, the police would have to look through missing person's reports from that time and place. The confessing person may need to lead police to where the body was hidden or dumped or otherwise disposed of. Although it is sometimes possible to convict someone of murder with no dead body, as discussed in a prior post, in a case like this, a body would almost certainly be needed.
For more interesting criminal law facts, news, and information, as well as special giveaways and promotions, delievered to your email, join the Criminal Law Community!
The issue of a corpus delicti comes up when there is a confession to a crime. If someone confesses to a crime, that person cannot simply be arrested and charged for that crime. The police must first determine whether the crime actually occured. (You might think this is a strange scenario, but people falsely confess all the time!)
Most states have a rule that a defendant's confession, standing alone, is not enough to prove him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the defendant's statement may not even be admissible in court until the prosecution has first presented some other evidence that the crime occurred. This is called corroborating evidence.
As an example, let's say someone walks in to the police station and confesses that he killed a prostitute ten years ago. Based on the person's description of the crime (exactly when, where and how it occurred), the police would have to check old reports. They would check if there were any prostitutes killed in the time, place and manner described.
Or, if the body was never found, the police would have to look through missing person's reports from that time and place. The confessing person may need to lead police to where the body was hidden or dumped or otherwise disposed of. Although it is sometimes possible to convict someone of murder with no dead body, as discussed in a prior post, in a case like this, a body would almost certainly be needed.
For more interesting criminal law facts, news, and information, as well as special giveaways and promotions, delievered to your email, join the Criminal Law Community!
RSS Feed
