- 919 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Joshua W. Keadle, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed July 8, 2022. No. S-20-580.

1. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Regardless of whether the 

evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court 

does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, 

and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if 

the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to 

the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. The relevant question 

for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Criminal Law: Appeal and Error. The “corpus delicti” is the body 

or substance of the crime—the fact that a crime has been committed, 

without regard to the identity of the person committing it.

3. Criminal Law: Words and Phrases. The corpus delicti requirement 

is composed of two elements: the fact or result forming the basis of a 

charge and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause thereof.

4. Criminal Law: Circumstantial Evidence: Proof. Nebraska requires 

that the corpus delicti of a crime must be established by evidence 

beyond a reasonable doubt, but it may be proved by either direct or 

circumstantial evidence.

5. Circumstantial Evidence: Words and Phrases. Circumstantial evidence is evidence which, without going directly to prove the existence 

of a fact, gives rise to a logical inference that such fact exists.

6. Convictions: Confessions: Evidence: Proof. A criminal conviction 

cannot be sustained solely upon a defendant’s extrajudicial admission 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

09/02/2022 01:05 AM CDT
- 920 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

or voluntary confession, but either or both are competent evidence 

of corpus delicti and may, with corroborative evidence of facts and 

circumstances, establish the corpus delicti and guilty participation of 

the defendant.

7. Criminal Law: Homicide: Proof. In homicide cases, the corpus delicti 

requirement is not established until it is proved that a human being 

is dead and that the death occurred as a result of the criminal agency 

of another.

8. ____: ____: ____. The body of a missing person is not required to prove 

the corpus delicti for homicide.

9. Homicide: Circumstantial Evidence. The failure to recover a body 

may, itself, be circumstantial evidence of the corpus delicti of homicide, 

because it is highly unlikely that a person who dies from natural causes 

will successfully dispose of his or her own body.

10. ____: ____. In the absence of a body, confession, or other direct evidence of death, circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support a 

conviction for murder.

11. ____: ____. There is no reason to treat the crime of murder differently 

from other crimes when considering the use of circumstantial evidence 

to establish their commission, and the presence or absence of a particular item of evidence is not controlling. The question is whether from all 

of the evidence it can reasonably be inferred that death occurred and that 

it was caused by a criminal agency.

12. Convictions: Circumstantial Evidence. Under Nebraska law, the 

accused’s rule has no application when reviewing the sufficiency of 

circumstantial evidence to support a criminal conviction, and it has no 

application when reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to 

support corpus delicti.

Appeal from the District Court for Gage County: Ricky A. 

Schreiner, Judge. Affirmed.

Jeffery A. Pickens, of Nebraska Commission on Public 

Advocacy, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. 

Vincent for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

and Papik, JJ., and Harder, District Judge.
- 921 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

Stacy, J.

Tyler Thomas, a student at Peru State College (PSC) in Peru, 

Nebraska, has been missing since the early morning hours of 

December 3, 2010. Her body has never been found. Joshua W. 

Keadle is the last person known to have seen Thomas alive. In 

2017, Keadle was charged with first degree murder in connection with Thomas’ disappearance. A jury found Keadle guilty 

of second degree murder, and he was sentenced to prison. 

Keadle appeals, assigning only that the evidence adduced at 

trial was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide. 

Finding no merit to this assignment, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

1. Thomas’ Disappearance

In the fall of 2010, Thomas was a 19-year-old student 

attending PSC. She lived on campus in a coed dormitory 

(dorm). On the evening of December 2, 2010, Thomas attended 

a series of parties, consumed alcohol, and became visibly 

intoxicated. After getting into an argument with friends at one 

of the parties, Thomas was asked to leave. She declined a ride 

back to her dorm, and instead left the party on foot, heading 

in the direction of campus. She also made statements about 

wanting to go back to Omaha, Nebraska, and walking there if 

necessary. The weather was cold, and Thomas was not wearing 

a coat.

Thomas was seen by others walking on the PSC campus 

between 1 and 1:30 a.m. on December 3, 2010, but she never 

made it back to her dorm. At approximately 1:25 a.m., several 

of Thomas’ friends received text messages from Thomas’ phone 

indicating that Thomas did not know where she was. The last 

such message was sent and received at 1:28 a.m., prompting 

Thomas’ friends to begin searching for her, without success. 

After a couple of hours, her friends contacted law enforcement to report Thomas missing. Law enforcement searched for 

Thomas without success. Organized search efforts continued 

for the next several days.
- 922 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

PSC conducted a room-by-room search of the dorm complex, but Thomas was not located. Thomas’ purse was found 

in her dorm room, along with her driver’s license, birth certificate, Social Security card, keys, debit cards, a gift card, and a 

check from PSC in the amount of $1,104.22.

Officers from the Nemaha County sheriff’s office and 

Nebraska State Patrol, along with hundreds of volunteers, 

searched for Thomas on the ground. Helicopters searched from 

the air. A search of the Missouri River was conducted using 

divers and sonar. Law enforcement disseminated information 

about Thomas’ disappearance on a national scale, including 

entering her information in the National Crime Information 

Center database and the database of the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children. A DNA profile for Thomas 

was developed from some of her personal belongings and 

entered into a national DNA database used to identify missing persons.

Thomas has never been located. Her cell phone has never 

been found. Friends and family who had regular contact with 

Thomas before her disappearance have not heard from her 

since. According to a credit report, Thomas’ only financial 

activity since her disappearance has been a failure to pay student loans.

2. Keadle Interviews

Keadle was also a student at PSC in the fall of 2010. At 

the time Thomas disappeared, Keadle was living in the same 

coed dorm complex as Thomas and their suites were near one 

another. There was evidence that Keadle and Thomas did not 

get along. PSC students observed Keadle and Thomas get into 

“heated argument[s]” with each other, and multiple students 

claim to have heard Keadle use derogatory terms when referring to Thomas. During the investigation of Thomas’ disappearance, law enforcement interviewed Keadle several times. 

The admissibility of those interviews is not at issue.

The first such interview occurred on December 4, 2010, 

when Keadle spoke with a Nebraska State Patrol trooper about 
- 923 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

his whereabouts the night Thomas disappeared. Keadle told 

the trooper that on the evening of December 2, he drove with 

friends to Nebraska City, Nebraska, to see a movie, which 

ended shortly after midnight on December 3. Keadle and his 

friends drove back to Peru, picked up some additional friends, 

and headed back to the dorm complex to “hang out.” Keadle 

said that while driving back, he saw Thomas walking in the 

direction of the dorm complex sometime between 1:10 and 

1:15 a.m. and that she appeared to be intoxicated.

Keadle told the trooper that after arriving at the dorm complex, he separated from his friends because he was not feeling well. He returned to his dorm to use the restroom, after 

which he noticed a light coming from a nearby dorm room. 

He knocked on the door and two female students answered. 

They told Keadle about receiving a text message from Thomas 

saying she was lost, and they indicated they were going out to 

search for her.

On December 5, 2010, an investigator visited with Keadle 

in his dorm room and asked Keadle to provide a written statement detailing his activities from 5 p.m. on December 2 until 

he went to sleep on December 3. Keadle complied, and he 

produced a written statement which was largely consistent 

with what he had told the trooper the day before. The investigator then asked some followup questions about Keadle’s 

and Thomas’ relationship. Keadle told the investigator that he 

and Thomas did not get along. When asked where he thought 

Thomas was, Keadle responded that he thought Thomas was in 

Omaha and was fine.

On December 6, 2010, law enforcement conducted a recorded 

interview with Keadle, in which he generally recounted the 

same version of events that he provided previously. When 

investigators asked Keadle whether there was a reason he 

would have left campus around the time Thomas disappeared, 

Keadle denied leaving his dorm room at all. Investigators 

then asked Keadle whether there was a reason that he would 

be on surveillance cameras outside of the dorm complex, and 

Keadle responded that he went to his vehicle to get change at 
- 924 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

one point. Later, when asked about his cell phone’s satellite 

location, Keadle admitted that he left his dorm around 2:30 

a.m. on December 3 and drove to the Missouri River to smoke 

marijuana. He also admitted driving back to the river the next 

morning, again to smoke. But Keadle repeatedly denied seeing Thomas either time he went to the river. When asked why 

Thomas’ phone would be showing it was located at the river, 

Keadle said he had “no clue.” He told law enforcement that if 

they wanted to check his vehicle, he would unlock it and they 

could bring their cadaver dogs.

On December 7, 2010, law enforcement conducted another 

recorded interview with Keadle. They told Keadle they had 

obtained additional information through their investigation 

which raised concerns about the timeline he provided. When 

pressed, Keadle insisted that he had not been with Thomas 

the night she disappeared. But eventually, Keadle remarked, 

“You’re not going to believe me, man.” When interviewers 

assured Keadle that they would believe him, Keadle said, 

“Okay, here’s what happened.”

Keadle proceeded to tell the officers that during the early 

morning hours of December 3, 2010, as he was driving to 

the river to smoke marijuana, Thomas “popped out” of some 

bushes. He let her into his vehicle, and she accompanied 

him to the boat ramp at the river. Keadle said that Thomas 

appeared to be upset and that she told him about having an 

argument with her friends earlier that night. At some point 

during their conversation, Thomas asked Keadle for a ride 

to Omaha. Keadle said he initially refused, but Thomas said 

she could “do something” for him if he agreed to take her 

to Omaha, and she began rubbing his crotch. According to 

Keadle, Thomas refused to have sex with him because she 

was menstruating, and she was unwilling to perform oral sex. 

But Keadle said that Thomas was willing to perform a “hand 

job” in exchange for a ride to Omaha and that he agreed. 

Keadle told the officer that he ejaculated into a napkin and 

threw the napkin on the ground. No napkin was recovered 

from the scene.
- 925 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

Keadle said that after this sexual encounter with Thomas, 

he walked to the edge of the river to smoke. It was then 

that Keadle decided he did not want to drive Thomas to 

Omaha after all. When he told Thomas this, she became angry. 

According to Keadle, Thomas ran toward him, started hitting 

him, swore at him, and threw her phone at him as he stood 

near the river. Keadle stated that he grabbed Thomas’ wrists 

and told her to “quit playing,” but that Thomas screamed at 

him and said she would tell the police that Keadle had raped 

her. Keadle offered Thomas a ride back to her dorm, but she 

refused to get back into his vehicle. Keadle said that he left 

the river without Thomas and that she was still screaming as 

he drove away.

Keadle said he was worried that Thomas would make good 

on her threat to accuse him of rape, so when he got back to 

his dorm, he showered to get Thomas’ DNA off. Keadle told 

officers that after the shower, he decided to go out looking 

for Thomas. He drove back to the river and walked around 

the area north of the boat ramp with a flashlight, yelling her 

name. When he did not find Thomas near the river, he drove 

to a graveyard, but did not find her there. Keadle said that 

he grew concerned about his potential criminal liability and 

whether he could be charged with homicide if Thomas “comes 

up . . . frozen to death.” So Keadle said he used his cell phone 

to research possible scenarios, which he described in his interview as “what if her body . . . ends up in the river and my 

fingerprints are gonna be on her from where I grabbed her,” 

“forensic evidence,” and “fingerprints in the water.”

When asked during his December 7, 2010, interview whether 

his DNA would be found on Thomas’ body, Keadle said he put 

his hand down the back of Thomas’ pants during the sexual 

encounter. And when asked whether Thomas’ body would 

show any injuries, Keadle responded that Thomas may have 

bruises on her wrists or elbows from where he had grabbed 

her. Keadle then remarked that it would “be a lot different” 

if they found her body and discovered she had been stabbed 

or shot.
- 926 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

3. Other Evidence

(a) Passengers in Keadle’s Vehicle

Law enforcement also interviewed the passengers who rode 

in Keadle’s vehicle on the night Thomas disappeared. Like 

Keadle, the passengers reported seeing Thomas walking toward 

the coed dorm complex around 1:15 a.m. on December 3, 

2010, and thought she looked intoxicated. One of the passengers said he asked about offering Thomas a ride, but Keadle 

responded, “‘No. She is like that all the time, just leave her.’” 

The passengers also said that they had plans to “hang out” with 

Keadle after they arrived at the dorm complex, but that Keadle 

separated from them and they were not able to reach him for 

a while after that. One of the passengers reported that Keadle 

sent her a text message at 2:13 a.m., stating, “My stomach is 

killin me. I’m [expletive] my guts out! And throwing up.” He 

texted her again at 2:15 a.m., stating, “I was in the shower. 

Good night!” He texted her once more at 2:42 a.m., saying, 

“I’m goin for a ride, want to come?” She did not reply.

(b) Video Surveillance

Law enforcement obtained video surveillance footage from 

a bank in Peru, showing traffic on Fifth Street during the early 

morning hours of December 3, 2010. Fifth Street connects 

with another street that leads to the boat ramp at the Missouri 

River. At 2:09 a.m., and again at 3:15 a.m., the video showed 

Keadle’s vehicle traveling southbound on Fifth Street toward 

the PSC campus.

(c) Drag Marks and Tire Tracks

In the days following Thomas’ disappearance, members of 

law enforcement searched the area near the Missouri River 

for evidence. In an area located just north of the boat ramp 

where Keadle admitted he had been with Thomas before she 

disappeared, they observed what appeared to be “drag marks” 

leading to the riverbank and down toward the water. The drag 

marks were located near a set of tire tracks that were consistent 

with the tires on Keadle’s vehicle.
- 927 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

(d) Keadle’s Vehicle

Approximately 5 days after Thomas’ disappearance, law 

enforcement impounded and searched Keadle’s vehicle, a 1996 

Ford Explorer. Law enforcement searched the vehicle again 

in 2016. Neither search revealed evidence of bloodshed or 

evidence of Thomas’ DNA profile. The expert who searched 

Keadle’s vehicle in 2016 noted there were more than 100 

stains on the carpeting, ceiling, and door of Keadle’s vehicle, 

but there were no stains on the seats; the seats appeared to be 

“brand new” compared to the rest of the vehicle.

(e) Keadle’s Statements to Others

Over the course of the investigation, law enforcement learned 

that Keadle had asked several PSC students to provide alibis. 

One student, who had been a passenger in Keadle’s vehicle the 

night Thomas went missing, said Keadle approached him the 

next morning and said, “[I]f anybody says anything or if anybody asks, . . . can you tell them that I was with you guys all 

night?” One of Keadle’s roommates (who had been out of town 

on the night Thomas disappeared) recalled a similar conversation. Keadle told the roommate that the “cops were by asking 

questions” and that if he “got asked about it,” he should say 

that Keadle was with him the night Thomas disappeared.

The day after Thomas went missing, Keadle was talking 

with a fellow PSC student while waiting in line to be interviewed by police. Keadle told the student he had a gun and 

asked whether the student would “hold it” for him. The student 

refused. The same student reported seeing Keadle with a gun 

once earlier that semester, and another student reported that 

Keadle told her he kept a gun under the passenger seat of his 

vehicle. No gun was ever recovered.

A few months after Thomas disappeared, Keadle was in 

the Nemaha County jail and commented to a cellmate about 

Thomas’ disappearance. The cellmate did not report the comment to law enforcement until 2017, after learning that Keadle 

had been arrested for Thomas’ murder. At that time, the cellmate reported that while they were incarcerated together in 
- 928 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

2011, Keadle said that he “‘[f]ucked [Thomas] and left her 

at the dock,’” but “‘will never go to prison because they will 

never find the body.’”

4. Criminal Charges and Trial

Keadle was arrested on December 8, 2010, in connection 

with Thomas’ disappearance, but he was not prosecuted at 

that time. He was arrested again in October 2017 and was 

eventually charged with the first degree murder of Thomas, a 

Class IA felony. The information was filed in Nemaha County 

District Court, but Keadle successfully moved for a change of 

venue, and the case was transferred to Gage County.

A jury trial commenced on January 28, 2020. The State 

introduced evidence about Thomas’ active social and extracurricular life at PSC, as well as her close relationships with 

family members and friends, none of whom had seen or heard 

from Thomas since her disappearance. The State also introduced the evidence described above regarding the investigation 

into Thomas’ disappearance, including Keadle’s interviews, 

Keadle’s statements to others, the bank surveillance footage, 

the searches of Keadle’s vehicle, and the drag marks found by 

the river.

Keadle did not testify in his own defense, but he offered 

evidence suggesting several possible explanations for Thomas’ 

sudden disappearance. Keadle introduced evidence of difficulties Thomas was experiencing in dating and personal 

relationships in the months leading up to her disappearance. 

He introduced posts from Thomas’ social media accounts 

in which she described “‘starting to slowly break down’” 

and drinking too much alcohol. And Keadle also introduced 

expert testimony on accidental hypothermia through a forensic pathologist and medical doctor. The pathologist testified 

about instances where intoxicated individuals had wandered 

off in cold weather and succumbed to hypothermia. On crossexamination, he admitted that if there was evidence that 

someone purposely took another person out to a place where 
- 929 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

that person would not be able to get back to safety, “you 

would call [that] a homicide.”

At the close of the evidence, Keadle moved to dismiss the 

complaint, asserting the evidence was insufficient to establish 

the corpus delicti of homicide. The district court overruled the 

motion, and the matter proceeded to a jury instruction conference. Keadle asked the court to give a tendered jury instruction addressing corpus delicti, which the district court refused. 

No error has been assigned to that ruling or to any of the jury 

instructions.

5. Jury Verdict and Sentence

The jury was given a standard step instruction and was told 

it could return a verdict of (1) guilty of murder in the first 

degree, (2) guilty of murder in the second degree, (3) guilty 

of sudden quarrel manslaughter, or (4) not guilty. The jury 

returned a verdict finding Keadle guilty of second degree murder. The judge accepted the verdict and sentenced Keadle to 

imprisonment for a term of 71 years to life.

Keadle appeals, represented by his trial counsel.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

Keadle assigns that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the 

issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of 

the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on 

the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, 

in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted 

at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is 
- 930 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

sufficient to support the conviction. 1 The relevant question for 

an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 2

IV. ANALYSIS

In this appeal, Keadle does not argue that the evidence 

adduced at trial was insufficient to convict him of second 

degree murder. 3 Instead, his only assignment of error is that 

the evidence adduced was insufficient to establish the corpus 

delicti of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. We limit our 

analysis accordingly, and we begin with a review of the corpus 

delicti requirement in Nebraska.

1. Corpus Delicti

[2] The “corpus delicti” is the body or substance of the 

crime—the fact that a crime has been committed, without 

regard to the identity of the person committing it. 4 For more 

than a century, Nebraska cases have recognized a corpus delicti 

requirement for criminal convictions. 5 While we have considered the corpus delicti requirement in cases involving murder, 6

1 State v. Hassan, 309 Neb. 644, 962 N.W.2d 210 (2021).

2 State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773, 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020).

3 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-304(1) (Reissue 2016) (“[a] person commits 

murder in the second degree if he [or she] causes the death of a person 

intentionally, but without premeditation”).

4 State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55, 65, 767 N.W.2d 784, 795 (2009).

5 See, e.g., Dodge v. The People, 4 Neb. 220, 230-31 (1876) (“[a] confession 

alone ought not to be sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti. There 

should be other proof that a crime has actually been committed, and the 

confession should only be allowed for the purpose of connecting the 

defendant with the offense”).

6 See, e.g., State v. Golyar, 301 Neb. 488, 919 N.W.2d 133 (2018); Edwards,

supra note 4; Gallegos v. State, 152 Neb. 831, 43 N.W.2d 1 (1950); Egbert 

v. State, 113 Neb. 790, 205 N.W. 252 (1925); Cryderman v. State, 101 

Neb. 85, 161 N.W. 1045 (1917).
- 931 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

we have also considered it in cases involving receiving a stolen 

automobile, 7 larceny, 8 forgery, 9 arson, 10 embezzlement of public 

money, 11 possession of cocaine, 12 destruction of property, 13 and 

leaving the scene of an accident, 14 to name a few.

[3-5] We have described the corpus delicti requirement as 

being composed of two elements: the fact or result forming 

the basis of a charge and the existence of a criminal agency as 

the cause thereof. 15 Nebraska requires that the corpus delicti of 

a crime must be established by evidence beyond a reasonable 

doubt, but it may be proved by either direct or circumstantial 

evidence. 16 Circumstantial evidence is evidence which, without 

going directly to prove the existence of a fact, gives rise to a 

logical inference that such fact exists. 17

[6] When describing the type of evidence that will satisfy the 

corpus delicti requirement, our rule has changed over time. 18

7 Limmerick v. State, 120 Neb. 558, 234 N.W. 98 (1931).

8 Smith v. State, 17 Neb. 358, 22 N.W. 780 (1885).

9 Blacker v. State, 74 Neb. 671, 105 N.W. 302 (1905).

10 Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 13 N.W.2d 641 (1944).

11 Haines v. State, 170 Neb. 304, 102 N.W.2d 609 (1960).

12 State v. Thompson, 244 Neb. 189, 505 N.W.2d 673 (1993).

13 State v. Babajamia, 223 Neb. 804, 394 N.W.2d 289 (1986).

14 State v. Nichols, 175 Neb. 761, 123 N.W.2d 860 (1963).

15 Edwards, supra note 4.

16 Id. See, also, State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702, 924 N.W.2d 711 (2019); 

Golyar, supra note 6; Gallegos, supra note 6.

17 Stubbendieck, supra note 16.

18 Compare rule as explained in Dodge, supra note 5 (providing that corpus 

delicti must be proved by evidence other than defendant’s confession), with 

Limmerick, supra note 7 (providing that confessions may be considered 

with other evidence to establish corpus delicti), and Egbert, supra note 

6, 113 Neb. at 795, 205 N.W. at 254 (providing that corpus delicti may 

be proved by extrajudicial confession along with “slight corroborating 

circumstances”).
- 932 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

But our modern cases recite that although a conviction cannot 

be sustained solely upon a defendant’s extrajudicial admission 

or voluntary confession, “either or both are competent evidence 

of [corpus delicti] and may, with corroborative evidence of 

facts and circumstances, establish the corpus delicti and guilty 

participation of the defendant.” 19

[7-9] In homicide cases, the corpus delicti requirement is 

not established until it is proved that a human being is dead 

and that the death occurred as a result of the criminal agency 

of another. 20 But “the body of a missing person is not required 

to prove the corpus delicti for homicide.” 21 We have explained 

that “[t]o require that the victim’s body be discovered would 

be unreasonable; it would mean that a murderer could escape 

punishment by successfully disposing of the body, no matter 

how complete and convincing the other evidence of guilt.” 22

Moreover, the failure to recover a body may, itself, be circumstantial evidence of corpus delicti:

“The fact that [the victim’s] body was never recovered 

would justify an inference by the jury that death was 

caused by a criminal agency. It is highly unlikely that a 

person who dies from natural causes will successfully dispose of his [or her] own body. Although such a result may 

be a theoretical possibility, it is contrary to the normal 

course of human affairs.

“The fact that a murderer may successfully dispose of 

the body of the victim does not entitle him [or her] to an 

19 Stubbendieck, supra note 16, 302 Neb. at 719, 924 N.W.2d at 724. See, 

also, Egbert, supra note 6.

20 Edwards, supra note 4. See, also, Golyar, supra note 6; Gallegos, supra

note 6.

21 Edwards, supra note 4, 278 Neb. at 66, 767 N.W.2d at 796.

22 Id.
- 933 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

acquittal. That is one form of success for which society 

has no reward.” 23

We have, in two prior cases, found that circumstantial evidence associated with a missing person’s disappearance was 

sufficient to establish a death by criminal agency, and thus sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide. 24 Both cases 

are instructive.

In State v. Edwards,

 25 the victim disappeared suddenly after 

telling a friend that she was on her way to see the defendant. 

The defendant was charged with murder in connection with 

the victim’s disappearance, and the jury ultimately convicted 

him of second degree murder. On appeal, the defendant 

argued there was insufficient evidence to establish the corpus 

delicti of homicide, because the victim’s body had not been 

found, he had not confessed to the victim’s murder, and there 

was no direct evidence that any death was caused by criminal agency.

[10,11] We found there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove corpus delicti, explaining:

The law is clear that in the absence of a body, confession, or other direct evidence of death, circumstantial 

evidence may be sufficient to support a conviction for 

murder. There is no reason to treat the crime of murder 

differently from other crimes when considering the use 

of circumstantial evidence to establish their commission, 

23 Id. at 66-67, 767 N.W.2d at 796, quoting People v. Manson, 71 Cal. 

App. 3d 1, 139 Cal. Rptr. 275 (1977). See, also, Limmerick, supra note 

7, 120 Neb. at 560, 234 N.W. at 99 (remarking that “[g]uilty men would 

often escape just punishment if the rule prevailed, as in early times, that 

a conviction could not be obtained in a homicide case unless the corpus 

delicti was proved by direct evidence which necessitated the finding of the 

victim’s body in every case” and that such a rule “made murderers safe if 

the body of the victim was burned or placed in the bottom of the sea”).

24 See, Golyar, supra note 6; Edwards, supra note 4.

25 Edwards, supra note 4.
- 934 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

and “[t]he presence or absence of a particular item of 

evidence is not controlling. The question is whether from 

all of the evidence it can reasonably be inferred that death 

occurred and that it was caused by a criminal agency.” 

The presence of a confession, admission, or incriminating 

statement is a distinction without a difference. 26

In discussing the circumstantial evidence establishing the corpus delicti, Edwards noted there was evidence that the victim’s 

habits and relationships had been abruptly severed without 

explanation, that she had abandoned all of her personal effects 

and her pet, and that she had not picked up her paycheck or 

used her bank account since her disappearance. We described 

this as persuasive circumstantial evidence of an involuntary 

disappearance and death by foul play.

Additionally, Edwards noted that evidence of “what was 

almost certainly [the victim’s] blood . . . found in [the defendant’s] bedroom and the trunk of his automobile is highly suggestive of an unlawful killing.” 27 Edwards also found circumstantial evidence of corpus delicti based on evidence that the 

defendant had taken steps to conceal the victim’s disappearance 

and to cover up the blood evidence, explaining that the “fact 

that such evidence also bears on who is guilty does not detract 

from its efficacy at establishing the corpus delicti.” 28 Edwards

thus concluded that despite the absence of a confession or 

admission from the defendant, the circumstantial evidence was 

easily sufficient to prove the corpus delicti of homicide.

In State v. Golyar,

 29 the victim also disappeared suddenly 

and unexpectedly and her body was never found. Four years 

later, the defendant, who considered the victim a romantic 

rival, was charged with first degree murder in connection 

26 Id. at 68-69, 767 N.W.2d at 797.

27 Id. at 67, 767 N.W.2d at 797.

28 Id. at 68, 767 N.W.2d at 797.

29 Golyar, supra note 6.
- 935 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

with the victim’s disappearance. The defendant was convicted 

after a bench trial, and she appealed, arguing, among other 

things, that the evidence was insufficient to prove the victim 

was dead.

Our opinion in Golyar cited Edwards for the settled propositions that the body of a missing person is not required to 

prove the corpus delicti of homicide and that circumstantial 

evidence associated with the victim’s disappearance can be 

sufficient to establish the victim’s death. With respect to corpus delicti, the defendant in Golyar was challenging only the 

sufficiency of proof that a death had occurred, and we limited 

our analysis accordingly. We noted there was evidence that the 

victim abruptly ended her contacts with her teenage son, her 

parents, her employer, and her boyfriend, and had not been 

seen for years. There was evidence that the victim’s money 

had not been accessed since her disappearance, aside from the 

use of her debit card on one occasion (which was later linked 

to the defendant). The victim’s own blood was found in her 

abandoned vehicle. There was evidence that the defendant 

had been posing as the victim online and in social media in 

an attempt to conceal the victim’s disappearance. And there 

were photographs of what appeared to be body parts with tattoos identical to those of the victim discovered on the memory 

card from a cell phone belonging to the defendant. We concluded that a rational trier of fact, viewing this circumstantial 

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could have 

concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim was no 

longer alive.

In this case, Keadle argues that the State failed to prove 

the corpus delicti of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. 

When making this argument below, Keadle purported to rely 

primarily upon our well-settled rule that criminal convictions cannot be sustained solely upon extrajudicial admissions or confessions. 30 To that end, Keadle urged that if his 

30 See Stubbendieck, supra note 16.
- 936 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

extrajudicial admissions had been excluded from consideration, the remaining evidence adduced by the State would 

have been insufficient to establish that Thomas’ death was 

the result of criminal conduct. But he did not preserve such 

an argument for appeal. In neither his appellate briefing, nor 

during his oral argument, did Keadle argue that the district 

court erred in considering his extrajudicial admissions when 

it determined that the evidence was sufficient to establish the 

corpus delicti of homicide. Instead, he argues more broadly 

that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove the 

corpus delicti of homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. In that 

respect, the corpus delicti arguments he raises now resemble 

those raised in Edwards and Golyar.

We pause here to observe that in a case where the conviction is not based solely on a confession or extrajudicial admission, it is not clear what purpose the corpus delicti requirement 

serves that is not already served by requiring the State to prove 

each material element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But ultimately, because no one here has asked us to 

reconsider the utility of the corpus delicti requirement in such 

a case, that is a question for another day.

With this background in mind, we now turn to Keadle’s 

argument that the evidence in this case was insufficient to 

prove the corpus delicti of homicide.

2. Evidence of Corpus Delicti

To determine whether the corpus delicti requirement was 

satisfied in this case, we view the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the State and consider whether any rational trier of 

fact could have found that Thomas is dead and that her death 

resulted from a criminal act. 31 On this record, we find ample 

circumstantial evidence to prove the corpus delicti of homicide 

beyond a reasonable doubt.

31 See, Golyar, supra note 6; Edwards, supra note 4.
- 937 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

The evidence showed that Thomas was a young, active 

college student who regularly participated in extracurricular 

activities, often spoke with family members, and socialized 

with peers. But since Thomas’ disappearance on December 3, 

2010, none of her friends or family members have heard from 

her. Her habits and relationships were abruptly severed without 

explanation, and she left behind her driver’s license, birth certificate, Social Security card, keys, debit cards, a gift card, and 

a sizable check. Her credit history shows no financial activity 

since her disappearance, aside from a failure to pay student 

loans. Based upon this evidence, a reasonable fact finder could 

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas is dead.

However, we do not understand Keadle’s argument on appeal 

to dispute there was sufficient evidence that Thomas is dead. 

Instead, the primary focus of his argument is that the evidence 

adduced was insufficient to prove that her death was the result 

of a criminal act. Keadle argues that unlike Edwards, the State 

offered “no blood evidence, other biological evidence, or any 

other kind of physical evidence” 32 to suggest Thomas’ death 

was caused by a criminal act.

Keadle is correct that Edwards found bloodstain evidence 

to be persuasive circumstantial proof that the victim in that 

case was dead and that her death was the result of the criminal 

act of another. But Edwards neither mandated nor suggested 

that blood or other biological evidence must be present for 

the State to prove corpus delicti in a homicide case where the 

body is never found. To the contrary, Edwards clarified that 

“‘[t]he presence or absence of a particular item of evidence is 

not controlling’” 33 as to whether the corpus delicti requirement 

has been satisfied. The fact that the circumstantial evidence in 

this case did not include blood or DNA evidence is simply not 

dispositive of the corpus delicti requirement. Instead, “‘[t]he 

32 Brief for appellant at 72.

33 Edwards, supra note 4, 278 Neb. at 68, 767 N.W.2d at 797, quoting People 

v. Bolinski, 260 Cal. App. 2d 705, 67 Cal. Rptr. 347 (1968).
- 938 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

question is whether from all of the evidence it can reasonably 

be inferred that death occurred and that it was caused by a 

criminal agency.’” 34 We find ample circumstantial evidence to 

support the conclusion that Thomas died as a result of a criminal act.

First, the fact that Thomas’ body was never recovered is, in 

and of itself, circumstantial evidence that her death was caused 

by a criminal act. As noted in Edwards, “‘[i]t is highly unlikely 

that a person who dies from natural causes will successfully 

dispose of his [or her] own body.’” 35 Moreover, the fact that 

Thomas was a social, active young woman with many close 

personal relationships makes it unlikely that without another’s 

involvement, she would simply disappear without a trace. There 

was also physical evidence supporting criminal activity in this 

case. As noted, law enforcement observed what appeared to be 

drag marks leading to the river in the area where Keadle admitted being with Thomas on the night she disappeared.

And Keadle’s own admissions provide strong circumstantial 

evidence that Thomas’ death resulted from criminal acts which 

he committed. Keadle admitted that he saw Thomas walking 

to her dorm the night she disappeared and that he thought 

she looked intoxicated. Keadle admitted that even though 

he and Thomas did not get along, he picked her up in his 

vehicle, drove her to the river, and engaged in sexual activity 

with her. He also admitted that he and Thomas had a physical altercation at the river, that Thomas may have sustained 

bruising during the altercation, and that during the altercation, 

Thomas threatened to accuse him of rape. He admitted that 

he left Thomas at the river after the altercation and that he 

drove back to his dorm where he showered to “get [Thomas’] 

DNA off of him,” before heading back to the river a second 

time. This timeline was corroborated by the bank surveillance 

video. Keadle also admitted to police that he was concerned 

34 Id.

35 Id. at 66, 767 N.W.2d at 796, quoting Manson, supra note 23.
- 939 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

about his criminal liability and had researched whether fingerprints can show up on bodies that have been submerged 

in water. From these admissions, a rational trier of fact could 

infer that when Keadle left the river that night, he did not 

leave Thomas alive.

Moreover, in the days following Thomas’ disappearance, 

Keadle tried to procure an alibi from two PSC students and 

asked another student to hold a gun for him. And after Thomas’ 

disappearance, Keadle told his cellmate that he “‘[f]ucked 

[Thomas] and left her at the dock,’” but “‘will never go to 

prison because they will never find the body.’” Based on this 

evidence, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable 

doubt that Thomas’ death was the result of Keadle’s criminal agency.

On this record, we find the evidence adduced at trial was 

easily sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of homicide 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Keadle’s sole assignment of error 

is without merit.

For the sake of completeness, we note that Keadle also 

argues that the circumstantial evidence adduced at trial may 

support noncriminal explanations for Thomas’ death, including 

that she “may have purposely or accidentally hurt herself.” 36

Keadle points to evidence that Thomas was experiencing relationship problems and that on the night of her disappearance, 

she was intoxicated, angry, and “inappropriately dressed for 

the cold.” 37 He argues that “[s]he was so desperate to get to 

Omaha, she offered a sexual favor to someone she disliked.” 38

And he suggests that after she was “[l]eft at the river in the 

cold and the darkness while drunk and angry, anything could 

have happened to her. She might have fallen in the river. She 

might have jumped in the river.” 39

36 Brief for appellant at 72.

37 Id. at 73.

38 Id.

39 Id.
- 940 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

311 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. KEADLE

Cite as 311 Neb. 919

[12] Keadle made similar arguments to the jury in this case, 

and the jury rejected those arguments by returning a verdict 

finding Keadle guilty of second degree murder. Moreover, to 

the extent Keadle is suggesting that in order to prove the corpus 

delicti of homicide using circumstantial evidence, the State had 

to disprove all theories inconsistent with criminal agency, he is 

simply incorrect. Nebraska has rejected the accused’s rule, and 

thus has abandoned “‘any notion that before an accused may 

be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone, the 

State must disprove every hypothesis but that of guilt.’” 40 The 

accused’s rule has no application when reviewing the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a criminal conviction, and it has no application when reviewing the sufficiency 

of circumstantial evidence to establish corpus delicti.

V. CONCLUSION

Finding no merit to Keadle’s assigned error, we affirm the 

judgment of the district court.

Affirmed.

Freudenberg, J., not participating.

40 State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974, 987, 885 N.W.2d 699, 708-09 (2016), 

quoting State v. Buchanan, 210 Neb. 20, 312 N.W.2d 684 (1981).