RULE OF CORPUS DELICTI IN CRIMINAL LAW

RULE OF CORPUS DELICTI IN CRIMINAL LAW <!--[if gte mso 10]> RULE OF CORPUS DELICTI IN CRIMINAL LAW By Rana Aneel Arshed, Advocate High Court Corpus delicti is, Latin word which mean "body of crime", a term from western jurisprudence which refers to the principle that it must be proven that a crime has occurred, before a person can be convicted of committing the crime. For example, in order for a person to be tried for arson, it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) defines "corpus delicti" as "the fact of a crime having been actually committed". Corpus delicti may be defined as "Proof that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by some one". A consideration of the meaning of corpus delicti becomes necessary at this point, because some people usually think of a murder victim when anyone uses this term. A commonly accepted definition of corpus delicti is "the body or substance of a crime". As the term is used and understood today, this definition is not accurate. The definition has a broader meaning. Corpus delicti is applicable to the substantial and fundamental fact or facts connected with the actual commission of an illegal act (civil or criminal).For example, in the theft of a watch, the corpus delicti is the taking of the watch. The corpus delicti is the objective proof that a crime has been committed. It is the body or substance of a crime, which ordinarily includes the act itself which constitutes the crime and the criminal agency of the act. HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF RULE The "corpus delicti rule" is a common law rule of ancient origin which requires that the State show by evidence, independent of a confession or admission, the existence of each element of the crime. Many scholars believe the doctrine owes its genesis, at least in part, to a widely reported 17th Century English case in which three people were executed following a false confession to murder, only to have the erstwhile "victim" turn up alive. Such a shock naturally called into question the competency of the criminal justice process and commentators began to recognize that confessions were potentially unreliable evidence of objective truth. To prove the confession was not the product of a fevered imagination, some Courts began to require evidence of the crime independent of the confession. In contrast to English courts, which never universally accepted the doctrine, characterizing it as "a rule of judicial practice" rather than part of the "law of evidence", and limiting its application to homicide cases 19th century American courts applied the corpus delicti rule to all crimes. A POSITIVE OBSTRUCTION TO JUSTICE Most commentators believe the corpus delicti rule should be relegated to the jurisprudential dustbin. Learned hand doubted the rule had "any substantial necessity in justice". Courts advance three justifications to defend the rule's legitimacy. These are that the rule:-- (1) Protects innocent persons from their own objectively false confession. (2) Protects against coerced confessions, and (3) Promotes better law enforcement by discouraging techniques that rely too heavily on confession. Wigmore found it- "a positive obstruction to the course of justice". BURDEN OF PROOF Usually the corpus delicti is proven by the prosecution at the start of a case, because without it, there is no offence. On September 27, 2001, the Supreme Court of Arkansas in case titled as Charles Bornes v. State of Arkansas, held that under the corpus delicti rule, the State must prove (1) the existence of an injury or harm constituting a crime and (2) that the injury or harm was caused by someone's criminal activity; it is not necessary to establish any further connection between the crime and the particular defendant. And the State needs to prove that the accused confessed and the victim died as a result of a homicide. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in case Long v. State (1943 OK CR, 77 OKL Cr. 174, 140 P.2 & 600) laid down the following principles relating to corpus delicti namely:-- (1) In a criminal case a conviction cannot be had on the extra judicial confessions of the defendant, without evidence aliunde of the corpus delicti, but direct and positive proof of that fact is not indispensable; (2) the corpus delicti must be established as an independent fact, beyond a reasonable doubt, yet it is not necessary that it should be proven by direct and positive proof. It may be proven by circumstantial evidence if from all the circumstances the jury is satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the corpus delicti may be established without showing that the offence charged was committed by the accused; and (4) an extra judicial confession of the defendant is not sufficient to warrant his conviction without additional proof that the crime charged has been committed. There must be in addition to the confession, proof of the corpus delicti, and where the corpus delicti is established by independent evidence, a conviction based upon the defendant's voluntary confession is warranted.