Summary
In Pope v. State, 158 Miss. 794, 131 So. 264, it was held that if proof aliunde plus confession establishes the crime beyond a reasonable doubt the confession is admissible.
Summary of this case from Ruffin v. StateOpinion
No. 28875.
December 1, 1930.
1. CRIMINAL LAW. Corpus delicti must be established by evidence aliunde confessions of defendant; corpus delicti need not be established beyond reasonable doubt by evidence aliunde defendant's confession; if proof aliunde plus confession establishes crime beyond reasonable doubt, confession is admissible.
While the corpus delicti of a crime must be established by evidence aliunde the confession of the defendant, still such corpus delicti does not have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt by evidence aliunde, but, if the proof aliunde amounts to a probability, or is established by a preponderance of the evidence, a confession may be admitted, and, if the evidence aliunde plus the confession establishes the crime beyond reasonable doubt, it is sufficient.
2. CRIMINAL LAW.
Evidence establishing burglary of hardware store, apart from defendants' confessions, held sufficient to establish corpus delicti, rendering confessions admissible.
APPEAL from circuit court of Prentiss county. HON.C.P. LONG, Judge.
F.W. Cunningham, of Booneville, and T.A. Clark, of Iuka, for appellant.
The conviction of these appellants rests solely upon their alleged confessions of guilt, as the testimony of the state failed to show an intent to take, steal and carry away any goods, which is a necessary element of burglary.
4 R.C.L., pp. 415, 428; 2 Wharton's Criminal Law (11 Ed.), sec. 1024; 9 Corpus Juris, p. 1030, sec. 51.
It is well settled by the law of England, that a voluntary and unsuspected confession of guilt, whether made in the course of conversation with private individuals, or under examination before a magistrate, is clearly sufficient to warrant a conviction wherever there is independent proof of the corpus delicti. The doctrine that the prisoner's confession, when the corpus delicti is not proved by independent testimony, is insufficient for his conviction, best accords with the solid principles of reason, and the caution which should be applied in the admission and estimate of this species of evidence.
Stringfellow v. State, 26 Miss. 157.
W.A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
The rule with regard to proof of the corpus delicti, apart from the mere confessions of the accused, proceeds upon the reason that the general fact, without which there could be no guilt, either in the accused or anyone else, must be established before anyone could be convicted of the perpetration of the alleged criminal act which caused it; as in cases of homicide, the death must be shown; in larceny, it must be proved that the goods were lost by the owner; and in arson, that the house had been burned; for otherwise, the accused might be convicted of murder, when the person alleged to be murdered was alive; or of larceny, when the owner had not lost the goods; or of arson, when the house was not burned. But when the general fact is proved, the foundation is laid, and it is competent to show by any legal and sufficient evidence, how and by whom the act was committed, and that it was done criminally.
Sam v. State, 33 Miss. 347.
Where by statute a person accused of crime is made a competent witness in his own behalf and one so accused testified on his preliminary examination before a committing court in the exercise of this right, such testimony may afterward on the trial of his case, be used against him.
Hill v. State, 64 Miss. 431, 1 So. 494.
Facts ascertained by reason of a confession may be considered in establishing the corpus delicti; but a confession not made in open court; or before the examining magistrate, but to an individual, uncorroborated by circumstances, and without proof aliunde, that a crime has been committed, will not justify conviction, but the corpus delicti must be proved independently of extra judicial confessions, and beyond a reasonable doubt, and without such proof of the corpus delicti, evidence of the confession is inadmissible at the trial.
Stringfellow v. State, 26 Miss. 157; Pitt v. State, 43 Miss. 472.
On the trial of a criminal case, a confession by the accused may be considered together with other evidence to establish the corpus delicti, provided such other evidence is of such character as will satisfy the mind that it is a real and not an imaginary charge the accused has confessed.
Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921; Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743.
The appellants were indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of burglary; the burglary being alleged and shown to be of the storehouse of the Booneville Hardware Company, a corporation.
It is contended by the appellants that there was not a sufficient establishment of the corpus delicti by evidence aliunde the confessions of the defendants, and this constitutes the assignment of error, a peremptory instruction having been requested and refused directing a verdict of acquittal.
The evidence for the state, apart from the confessions of the defendants, is that on the date in question the fastening of the storehouse door of the hardware company had been removed. The door was closed, but the witness for the state testified that on the evening of the burglary he closed and bolted the door, fastening it so that it could not be opened from the outside: that he was positive this was done, and that he and another were the last persons to leave the store.
Another employee, who opened the store the following morning, testified that the fastenings had been removed and the door was not fastened and secured in its usual manner so it could not be opened from the outside; that, when the employee who closed the door came in, he called his attention to it, and that he had found the door in that condition. Another of the employees of the store testified that they missed a box or crate of shells: that a day or two before the date of the burglary they had put the shells aside to be returned to the party from whom they were bought because they were not suitable; that there were two crates of the shells; and that a day or two after the burglary they went to reship the shells and found one of the crates missing.
We think this constitutes a sufficient proof of the corpus delicti for the reception of the confessions of the defendants. The confessions of the defendants, each of them, were that the defendant Pope was employed as a delivery boy for the hardware company and had secreted the defendant Pate in the store of the hardware company for the purpose of removing the fastenings of the door and opening it and letting Pope into the store, and that they went from that store into another store which was also burglarized on the same occasion, and took goods therefrom. At the time these confessions were made, the appellants were under arrest for burglarizing the other store, and they do not seem to have stated that they took anything from the store involved in the present prosecution. The other store burglarized, about which the arrest was first made, was known as the Patrick Store, and adjoined the hardware store. The evidence as to the confessions is full and complete, and the confessions were legally admissible if the corpus delicti had been sufficiently proven by other evidence, which we think it had. In order for the corpus delicti to be established by evidence aliunde the confessions, it is not necessary that the proof aliunde should show the crime or corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is sufficient to show it by a preponderance of the evidence or by evidence amounting to a probability, and then the confessions will be received, and, if the confessions coupled with the proof of the corpus delicti aliunde show the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, it is sufficient. See Walker v. State, 127 Miss. 246, 89 So. 921: Patterson v. State, 127 Miss. 256, 90 So. 2; Garner v. State, 132 Miss. 815, 96 So. 743; Wood v. State. 155 Miss. 298, 124 So. 353.
The judgment of the court below will therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.