The anatomy of Florida's corpus delicti doctrine.

• Author: Barber, Tom

Corpus delicti is one of those not-so-glamorous topics that tends to fall through the academic cracks in many law schools. In fact, before having to focus on this subject as a novice prosecutor, my knowledge of it was limited to what my bar exam review instructor had taught me: Corpus delicti is always the wrong answer to an evidence question. In practice, corpus delicti can be one of the most important, but frequently misunderstood, topics in criminal law. The purpose of this article is to review the general law of corpus delicti with a focus on its practical application in Florida criminal eases.

The Corpus Delicti Rule

Corpus delicti, which means "the body of a crime," is a common law doctrine that requires the state to prove that a crime has been committed before allowing a defendant's extrajudicial (i.e., out of court) confession to be admitted into evidence in a criminal trial. "Corpus delicti does not mean dead body, as often assumed by laymen, but the body or substance of the crime. Every offense has its corpus delicti, and independent proof thereof is needed for homicide and non-homicide offenses such as arson, bribery, burglary, conspiracy, false pretenses, incest or larceny."[1] If the corpus delicti "rule" is not satisfied, a confession cannot come into evidence.

Analytically, corpus delicti is both a rule of evidence and a rule of substantive criminal law.[2] It is a rule of evidence because it prohibits the admission of a particular piece of evidence--a confession--without other proof. It can be viewed as a rule of substantive law because it prohibits a criminal conviction, as a matter of law, if the prosecution has not proven the corpus delicti. Thus, in a Florida criminal trial it is possible that a jury would hear nothing about a defendant's confession, even if it were clear that the defendant voluntarily, knowingly, and willingly walked into his or her local police station, waived all Constitutional rights and completely confessed to committing a crime. In fact, if the state's only evidence is a confession, criminal charges may not even be filed.

A great deal of misunderstanding surrounds the proper application of the corpus delicti rule because, in practice, both prosecutors and defense attorneys tend to distort it to suit their own purposes. On the one hand, prosecutors sometimes argue that the rule only requires them to produce "corroboration" before a defendant's confession may be admitted. On the other hand, defense attorneys sometimes argue that the rule requires the state to prove each and every element of the crime charged, beyond and to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt, before a confession may be admitted. While both of these variants summarize the operation of the corpus delicti rule in other jurisdictions, neither reflects the current law in Florida.

History and Rationale

A brief review of the rule's history and rationale can be helpful when confronted with a corpus delicti issue in practice. Legal historians trace the origins of the corpus delicti rule to a 1661 English murder prosecution known as Perry's Case.[3] There, the victim's body was never found but three codefendants were convicted of murder and executed based largely on one codefendant's confession. Unfortunately, the supposed murder victim turned up alive and well shortly after the executions. A similar situation occurred in the United States in the early 1800s. In the case of Stephen and Jessee Boorn, the supposed murder victim resurfaced just in time to prevent his alleged murderer from being executed.[4] Unfortunate cases such as these led the courts to develop what we know today as "the corpus delicti rule."

The original English corpus delicti rule was limited to murder cases, but American courts expanded it to apply to all kinds of criminal cases.[5] In Florida it appears that a corpus delicti issue arose for the first time in a published opinion in 1894.[6] Today, nearly every American jurisdiction has some version of the corpus delicti rule in place. Surprisingly, the requirements of the rule vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and there is a distinct federal version of this doctrine which is substantially different from Florida's.[7]

The corpus delicti rule is intended to further three general policies: 1) to protect the mentally unstable from being convicted as a result of untrue confessions; 2) to ensure that innocent people are not convicted as a result of coerced, involuntary "confessions".[8] and 3) to promote more thorough law enforcement work by requiring authorities to find evidence beyond a confession,s The Florida Supreme Court has explained the policy reasons for the corpus delicti rule as follows: "A person's confession to a crime is not sufficient evidence of a criminal act where no independent direct or circumstantial evidence exists to substantiate the occurrence of a crime. The judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication."[9] As the Fifth District explained, "the traditional purpose of the corpus delicti rule was to ensure that a defendant would not be convicted solely on a mistaken confession to a crime that did not occur."[10]

It is important to note that corpus delicti is a common law rather than a Constitutional doctrine. Although one commentator writing in the 1960s predicted that the Warren Court would find that the Constitution required some version of a corpus delicti rule, this has not occurred.[11] No court has ever found a Constitutional "right" requiring the corpus delicti rule to be satisfied in a criminal case.[12]

Operation of the Corpus Delicti Rule in Florida

Consistent with the common law, Florida law requires the state to "prove the corpus delicti" before a...