Opinion ID: 1709949
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sexual Battery Confession

Text: Next, Tanzi claims that the trial court failed to follow the requirements of section 92.565, Florida Statutes (2002), when admitting Tanzi's confession to sexual battery. However, the trial court admitted Tanzi's sexual battery confession because it found the existence of a prima facie case (or in other words, the existence of the corpus delicti), making it unnecessary for the trial court to test the reliability of the confession using the procedures outlined in section 92.565. It is within the trial court's province to determine the sufficiency of the proof of the corpus delicti. Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16, 26 (Fla.1958). This Court has articulated the following standards that govern a corpus delicti analysis: The general order of proof is to show that a crime has been committed and then that the defendant committed it. Spanish v. State, 45 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1950); see State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823 (Fla.1976). But in many cases the two elements are so intimately connected that the proof of the corpus delicti and the guilty agency are shown at the same time. Spanish, 45 So.2d at 754. Thus, the evidence which tends to prove one may also tend to prove the other, so that the existence of the crime and the guilt of the defendant may stand together and inseparable on one foundation of circumstantial evidence. Cross v. State, 96 Fla. 768, 780-81, 119 So. 380, 384 (1928). A defendant's confession or statement may be considered in connection with the other evidence, but the corpus delicti cannot rest upon the confession or admission alone. Id. at 781, 119 So. at 384. Before a confession or statement may be admitted, there must be prima facie proof tending to show the crime was committed. Frazier v. State, 107 So.2d 16 (Fla.1958); Cross; see Farinas v. State, 569 So.2d 425 (Fla.1990); Bassett v. State, 449 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984). Additionally, by the end of trial the corpus delicti must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Cross. Schwab v. State, 636 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla.1994). Based upon the facts in the record, the same facts which were before the trial court, the trial court did not err in finding the required prima facie existence of the corpus delicti. Tanzi confessed to forcing Acosta to perform oral sex under a threat to cut her throat with a razor and that he ordered her to stop when her loose teeth had lessened his pleasure. A medical examiner determined that Acosta's teeth were in fact loose. A towel containing Tanzi's semen was found in Acosta's van, the location Tanzi indicated the oral sexual battery took place. Further, razors were discovered in Acosta's van. Based on these facts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the corpus delicti and admitting Tanzi's confession to sexual battery.