Opinion ID: 1717911
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Instruction on corroboration of confession

Text: A confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that the offense was committed. Ark.Code Ann. § 16-89-lll(d) (1987). Ms. Weindorf testified that when Leshe was confronted with her revelation of what the victim had told her he stated he guessed he was sicker than he thought he was. Counsel for Leshe asked that the jury be instructed as follows: You are instructed that a conviction may not be sustained on the evidence of a confession alone but that evidence corroborating each element of the offense is required in addition to any evidence of a confession. It is for you to determine whether or not there exists sufficient evidence of corroboration. We disagree with the state's contention that the court properly refused this instruction on the ground that it did not contain a reference to a confession made in open court. There was no open court confession here, and to have included those words just because they are in the statute would have been surplusage. The proposed instruction was relevant. We agree with Leshe's contention that, despite the fact that no such instruction appears in the Arkansas Model Criminal Instructions approved by this court, it should have been given if it correctly instructed the jury on the law contained in the statute. We find no error, however, in the trial court's refusal to give the instruction proffered. The statute only requires proof that the offense was committed by someone in order to corroborate a confession. McQueen v. State, 283 Ark. 232, 675 S.W.2d 358 (1984); Smith v. State, 286 Ark. 247, 691 S.W.2d 154 (1985). See Trotter v. State, 290 Ark. 269, 719 S.W.2d 268 (1986). By stating that evidence corroborating each element of the offense is required, the instruction might have been taken by the jury to mean that there must be proof that Leshe committed each element of the offense to corroborate the confession. If a proper instruction on corroboration of a confession had been proffered, simply requiring the jury to find that the offense had been committed, it would have been error to refuse it. Davis v. State, 115 Ark. 566, 173 S.W. 829 (1914).