Opinion ID: 1190451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Corpus Delicti Challenge

Text: Defendant contends that his confession was introduced at trial prior to the establishment of the corpus delicti of murder. Specifically, he argues that the State had the burden to prove the cause, method, and manner of the child's death. A confession is not sufficient to support a conviction absent independent evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime charged. [29] However, the actual cause of death is not a component of the corpus delicti of murder. To satisfy the doctrine, the State need only present clear and convincing evidence that the specified offense occurred and that it was perpetrated by criminal conduct. [30] The corpus delicti of murder has two components: (1) proof that the victim actually died and (2) proof that the death was caused by criminal means. [31] Proof of the latter component does not require proof of the actual cause of death. Rather, `the State need only present evidence that the death resulted from criminal conduct rather than by accident or from natural causes.' [32] In this case, the medical evidence was sufficient to establish that death did not occur from natural causes or by accidental means. Taken as a whole, the evidence offered prior to the admission of the confession adequately established the corpus delicti. Defendant's remaining contention concerning his confession is that the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the waiver of Miranda rights and the voluntariness of the confession. Inasmuch as this issue is raised for the first time on appeal, in the absence of exceptional circumstances we decline to address it. [33]