What is the Corpus Delicti Rule?
If you've been charged with a crime in California, the law requires that prosecutors provide independent evidence to convict you—even if you have confessed. This important legal principle, called corpus delicti, is designed to protect you from a conviction due to a forced or false confession.
Corpus delicti means the “body of the crime” and is a common law concept taught to all law school students that a court can't convict a defendant without sufficient proof that is independent of their confession or admission that the crime occurred, as defined under California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM 359).
For example, the “corpus delicti rule” does not mean a dead body has to be found to prove a murder occurred. Still, it does mean that prosecutors must present some independent evidence of a crime before introducing a defendant admitting or confessing to it.
To prove the corpus delicti, a prosecutor in a criminal case must show that there was injury, loss, or harm to somebody and illegal activity caused it. Simply put, the corpus delicti, or body of the crime, has to be established in every case, and it cannot be based only on the defendant's statements or confession.
This means the prosecution can't depend solely on a confession or other statement to prove that a criminal occurred. There must be independent proof to ensure their constitutional rights are not violated.
The primary purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to ensure that someone is not admitting to a crime that never occurred. Let's review further below.
What is the Background of Corpus Delicti?
Corpus delicti is Latin for "the body of the crime." The rule was first established as part of the Common Law in 16th-century England.
It required that independent proof, outside of a confession, be presented to show that a crime had occurred before any defendant could be convicted.
This protected against wrongful convictions due to false confessions or coercion. Many states, including California, have adopted the corpus delicti rule to ensure that a defendant won't be punished for admitting to a crime that never occurred.
How Does the Corpus Delicti Rule Works in California?
In California, the corpus delicti rule requires the prosecution to establish two critical elements for proof of a crime, independent of any confession the defendant may or may not have made:
- A specific injury, loss, or harm has occurred; and
- The damage was due to someone's criminal activity.
Both of these elements must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The corpus delicti rule states that the prosecutor must prove the corpus delicti in every criminal case but cannot use someone's confession or statements as the only evidence to do it.
There is an additional requirement under the corpus delicti rule. If prosecutors decide to use statements made by the alleged perpetrator, the jury must be instructed on the following:
- The person can't be convicted based only on their out-of-court statements;
- There has to be other evidence that shows the crime was committed,
- The other evidence could be minor and only has to support a reasonable inference that a crime occurred.
What Types of Evidence Can Be Used to Satisfy the Corpus Delicti Rule?
Under the corpus delicti rule, evidence refers to tangible proof that a crime has occurred. Evidence under the corpus delicti rule generally falls into two categories:
- Direct Evidence: This type of evidence directly establishes the fact of a crime. It includes any evidence that, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in question without inference or presumption. Examples could include eyewitness testimony, video footage, or the physical presence of a victim's body in homicide cases.
- Circumstantial Evidence: This is indirect evidence that implies the fact in question through logical inference. For instance, the presence of a defendant's fingerprints at a crime scene, DNA evidence, or the discovery of stolen goods in possession of the defendant can all be considered circumstantial evidence.
Between these two types of evidence, circumstantial evidence is the technical "gray area" because not all circumstantial evidence will necessarily satisfy the requirements of tangible proof under the corpus delicti rule.
This is often the area of the case where a good California criminal defense attorney will place the most effort—to demonstrate how circumstantial evidence does not meet the standards of proof.
The kind of evidence required to establish the corpus delicti can vary based on the nature of the crime. For instance:
- In a homicide case, the corpus delicti is typically established by presenting evidence of the victim's death caused by a criminal act;
- For theft-related offenses, the corpus delicti would require evidence of stolen property due to illegal activity;
- In DUI cases, the corpus delicti could be demonstrated by evidence of impaired driving and the detection of alcohol or drugs in the driver's system.
What are the Exceptions to Corpus Delicti Rule?
California allows some exceptions to corpus delicti: proving special circumstances in first-degree murder defined under Penal Code 190.2 PC and Penal Code 190.41 PC.
Under this exception, prosecutors must still provide tangible evidence to prove first-degree murder, but not the special circumstances. In other words, your confession alone can convict you of murder but can lead to a sentencing enhancement once the murder itself is proven.
How Can You Apply the Corpus Delicti Rule?
To better understand this principle further, let's look at two hypothetical examples below.
EXAMPLE 1: John is arrested and confesses to the police that he broke into a house. However, his confession alone isn't enough to convict him because of the corpus delicti rule.
Upon investigating, the police found signs of forced entry at the house, along with stolen items from the home in John's possession and video surveillance footage showing John breaking into the house. In this case, the elements of the corpus delicti rule are met, and prosecutors may be able to procure a conviction.
EXAMPLE 2: Sarah is taken into custody on suspicion of arson. Sarah suffers from mental illness, and under pressure from police, she confesses to starting a fire that burned down a warehouse.
Sarah's confession alone cannot lead to a conviction. Upon investigation, the fire department determined that the fire started due to an electrical fault and not because of any incendiary device or accelerant.
Despite Sarah's confession, no tangible evidence suggests a crime occurred. In this case, the corpus delicti is not established, and Sarah cannot be convicted of arson based on her confession alone.
Contact our law firm for a case review by phone or through the contact form. Eisner Gorin LLP has offices in Los Angeles, CA.