Opinion ID: 1139297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the corpus delicti

Text: The foregoing, rather lengthy exposition of the state's evidence is made necessary primarily by the claim on appeal that the state failed to prove the corpus delicti. While we have no reported murder case in this state in which no portion of the victim's body was found, we have recognized that It is well-established that any material facts, including the corpus delicti itself, may be proved by direct testimony or by indirect or circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both. State v. Griffin, 210 Kan. 729, 731, 504 P.2d 150. To the same effect, we have observed that No exclusive mode of proof of the corpus delicti is prescribed by the law. State v. Phippen, 207 Kan. 224, 230, 485 P.2d 336. As to what must be proved we have said, In homicide cases the corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime which consists of the killing of the deceased by some criminal agency and is established by proof of two facts, that one person was killed, and that another person killed him. State v. Phippen, supra, Syl. ¶ 3. See also, State v. Doyle, 201 Kan. 469, 441 P.2d 846. Even though we have not previously had occasion to consider a homicide case in which the proof of the corpus delicti was purely circumstantial the foregoing principles clearly establish that such proof is sufficient. Many other jurisdictions have so held in murder cases where no body was found. The applicable rules are aptly stated and amply supported by citations of authority in People v. Bolinski, 260 Cal. App.2d 705, 714-15, 67 Cal. Rptr. 347, 353: The corpus delicti of murder consists of two elements: the death of the alleged victim and the existence of some criminal agency as the cause, either or both of which may be proved circumstantially or inferentially. [Citations omitted.] The elements must be established independently of admissions or confessions of the defendant ... but as a basis for introduction of the defendant's confession or admission, the prosecution is not required to establish corpus delicti by proof as clear and convincing as is necessary to establish guilt; a slight or prima facie showing is sufficient. [Citations omitted.] Once corpus delicti is shown by independent evidence, the degree of the crime not being a part of the corpus delicti, the circumstances of the murder and its degree may be shown by extrajudicial statements of the accused. [Citations omitted.] It is for the trial court to determine whether a prima facie showing has been made. [Citations omitted.] Production of the body of the missing person or of evidence of the means used to produce death are not essential to the establishment of corpus delicti or to sustain a murder conviction. [Citations omitted.] In this case there was ample evidence, independent of Mike's admissions, from which first the court and later the jury might infer that Goldie was dead, and that she had been the victim of foul play. Such evidence included: the fact that she was never heard from after April 5 by her friends and customary associates; the strained relations between Mike and Goldie; the carefully constructed alibi consisting of his fabricated charges of drunkenness and the all-night trip to Colorado; the false-alarm fire of two days before; Mike's avowed intention to get the ranch one way or the other; and ultimately his premature display of knowledge of the fire and her death. Some of this evidence served a dual purpose; it not only showed that Goldie was dead by criminal means, but pointed the finger of guilt at Mike. The fact that it bore also on who was guilty does not detract from the efficacy of this evidence in establishing the corpus delicti. The defense moved for an acquittal on the ground that the corpus delicti was not proved. The motion was properly overruled.