I) Criminal Law Outline
I) Homicide
A) Homicide Elements:
1) Corpus Delicti: (Actus Reus, “Body of the Crime”)
(a) Death as a result
(b) Criminal Agency of Another- term “criminal agency” means not as the result of accident, natural causes, or suicide.
(i) The defendant’s identity as the perpetrator is not an element of the corpus delicti, although ultimately the prosecution must prove identity in order to secure a conviction.
i. For example : in the case where the victim’s body was found in the desert, the court held that there was insufficient proof of criminal agency, even though the defendant was seen with the victim shortly before the victim disappeared and was arrested afterwards while driving the victim’s car. While these facts
ii. arguably proved that the defendant had the opportunity to kill the victim, they did not prove anything about the cause of death (i.e. criminal agency).
2) Mens Rea (mental intent or negligence)
B. Proving Homicide
1) Actus Reus – The physical part of the crime {Corpus Delicti}(crime scene, action)
2) Mens Rea – The mental part of a crime (mindset, {intent or not})
3) Evidence
a) Direct- “evidence that provides direct factual information in a trial,
Ex/ a photograph, a document, or a witness’s account
b) Circumstantial- “evidence based on facts that allows a court/jury to infer that somebody is guilty without definite proof”
i) Circumstantial evidence may be used to prove either or both elements of the corpus delicti. By circumstantial evidence, we mean a chain of facts or circumstances from which we can draw a reasonable conclusion.
ii) The prosecution is not required to actually produce the victim’s body in order to establish the death of a living human being. This element may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
For example: even though the baby’s body was not found in the case where the mom dropped the baby off the bridge, the court drew the conclusion that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the baby’s death based on the facts that the baby was only a few weeks old, was dropped off the bridge into a swift, flooded creek, the baby’s cap was found next to the creek, and the baby was never seen or heard from again.(Warmke)
Rationale of Rule: clever murderers could avoid prosecution entirely by simply hiding or destroying all evidence of the body (like the wood chipper scene in Fargo).
i. iii) Circumstantial evidence may also be used to prove criminal agency, as in the case where the victim’s body was found neatly laid out in a rocky area, but
e.
v) The defendant’s in-court statements are admissible to prove the
corpus delicti because protections are in place (such as the right to counsel, the presence of the public, and the presence of a judge) that make us feel comfortable that voluntary statements made by the defendant against the defendant’s own interests (like the mom who admitted in open court that she dropped the baby off the bridge) are trustworthy and reliable.
vi) Generally speaking, if the conditions or concerns that led a court to adopt a rule change over time, the court may modify or abolish the rule, so long as the legislature has not codified the rule by statute.
For example: if a state required that all police interrogations be videotaped and that the defendant was entitled to the presence of counsel, that might be sufficient to eliminate our concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of such statements and to lead a court to abolish the rule that out-of-court statements by the defendant cannot be used to prove the corpus delicti.
