CORPUS DELICTI. The body of the of fence ; the essence of the crime.
It is a general rule not to convict unless the corpus delicti can be established, that is, until the fact that the crime has been act ually perpetrated has been first proved. Hence, on a charge of homicide, the accused should not be convicted unless the death be first distinctly proved, either by direct evidence of the fact or by inspection of the body ; Best, Pres. § 201; 1 Stark. Ev. 575. See 6 C. & P. 176; 2 Hale, P. C. 290; Whart Cr. Ey. § 324. Instances• have occurred of a person being convicted of having killed another, who, after the supposed criminal has been put to death for the supposed of fence, has made his appearance alive. The wisdom of the rule is apparent ; but it has been questioned whether, in extreme cases, it may not be competent to prove the basis of the corpus delicti by presumptive evidence; 3 Benth. Jud. Ey. 234; Wills, Cir. Ev. 105; Best, Pres. § 204 ; 3 Greenl. Ev. 30. In cases of felonious homicide, the corpus delicti con sists of two fundamental and necessary facts : first, the death; and secondly, the existence of criminal agency as its cause; Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472. A like analysis would apply in the case of any other crime. When the body of a murdered man was mutilated and burned beyond recognition, testimony that a piece of charred cloth found in the ashes with the body were like the trousers that a certain man wore, and that a slate pencil found there was identical with one he carried about him, was competent evi dence to establish the identity of the body ; State v. Martin, 47 S. C. 67, 25 S. E. 113.
The presumption nrising from the pos session of the fruits of crime recently after its commission, which In all cases is one of fact rather than of law, is occasionally so strong as to render unnecessary any direct proof of the corpus delicti. Thus, to borrow an illustration from Mr. Justice Maule, if a man were to go into the London docks quite sober, and shortly afterwards were to be found very drunk, staggering out of one of the cellars, in which above a million gallons of wine are stowed, "I think," says the learn ed judge, "that this would be reasonable evi dence that the man bad stolen some of the wine in the cellar, though no proof were given that any particular vat hnd been broached and that any wine had actually been missed."
Dears. 284; 1 Tayl. Ev. § 122. In this case it was proved that a prisoner indicted for larceny was seen coming out of the lower room of a warehouse in the London docks, in the floor above which a large quantity of pepper was deposited, and where he had no business to be. He was stopped by a constable, who suspected him from the bulky state of his pockets, and said, "I think there is something wrong about you ;" upon which the prisoner said, "I hope you will not be hard upon me;" and then threw a quantity of pepper out of his pocket on the ground. The witness stated that he could not say whether any pepper had beep stolen, nor that any pepper had been missed; but that which was found upon the prisoner was of like de scription with the pepper in the warehouse. It was held by all the judges that the prison er, upon these facts, was properly convicted of larceny.
The corpus delicti in arson consists in proof of the burning and of criminal agency in causing it ; Spears v. State, 92 Miss. 613, 46 South. 166, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) '285.
A 'confession alone ought not to be con sidered sufficient proof of the corpus delicti; Springfellow v. State, 26 Miss. 157, 59 Am. Dec. 247; People v. Henfiessey, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 147; Bines v. State, 118 Ga. 320, 45 S. E. 376, 68 L. R. A. 33. It may be proved by circumstantial evidence; Dimmick v. U. S., 135 Fed. 257, 70 C. C. A. 141 ; State v. Gillis, 73 S. C. 318, 53 S. E. 487, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 571, 114 Am. St. Rep. 95, 6 Ann. Cas. 993.