Opinion ID: 3017046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instruction on Corpus Delicti

Text: Under Pennsylvania law, the jury cannot consider a defendant’s out-of-court admission unless the jury first finds that the Commonwealth established the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. See Reyes, 681 A.2d at 728. The federal Due Process Clause in turn protects a criminal defendant against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). The Due Process Clause also requires that the jury be instructed on the necessity of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 104 (1972). On federal habeas review, the relevant question is “whether the ailing instruction by itself so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violated due process . . . , not merely whether the instruction is undesirable, erroneous, or even universally condemned.” Martin v. Warden, Huntingdon State Correctional Inst., 653 F.2d 799, 809 (3d Cir. 1981) (alteration in original) (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 (1977) and Cupp v. Naughton, 414 U.S. 141, 14647 (1973)). “‘[A] single instruction to the jury may not be barred under federal habeas law. 34 judged in artificial isolation but must be viewed in the context of the overall charge.’” Martin, 653 F.2d at 809-10 (quoting Cupp, 414 U.S. at 146-47). Here, Jacobs contends that the trial court violated his right to federal due process by failing to instruct the jury that it must find the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt before considering his out-of-court confessions, as required by state law. A review of the instruction as it pertains specifically to Jacobs’ confessions reflects that the charge was not perfect. The trial court spent four transcript pages of the 44-page charge discussing “special rules” that apply when considering a defendant’s confession: In this case, the Commonwealth is presenting the testimony of the Defendant’s mother in the belief that it is a confession, an admission, by him that he committed these crimes, and there are special rules that apply to confessions. The Commonwealth has introduced evidence of a statement which it claims was made by the Defendant. Before you consider the statement as evidence against the Defendant you must find, first, that a crime in fact was committed; second, that the Defendant in fact made the statement; and third, that the statement was voluntary. Otherwise, you must disregard the statement. 35 Each juror should ultimately decide these questions for himself and thereby individually accept or reject the Defendant’s statement as evidence. You must not allow the fact that I admitted the statement into evidence to influence you in any way during your deliberations. . . . Now to get back to confessions. There does not appear to be a great deal of dispute that a crime was in fact committed, at least in regard to the death of Tammy Mock. Now that doesn’t – my saying that doesn’t make it a fact. Nothing is a fact in the case until you as jurors determine it to be a fact, but in the arguments of counsel, that was what I understood defense counsel to indicate. That’s the only reason I’m saying that. But that’s something for you to determine when you get out to the jury room. . . . So it appeared to the Court that the specific issue that you would have to focus on in this particular area is that the Defendant in fact made the statement. And in that regard, what you want to focus on in particular is was [sic] his actual words as he spoke them repeated to you. In other words, did he say that exact thing? And, of course, there’s been some varied testimony in regard to that. You’ve heard the statement from the witness on the stand, the mother. You’ve heard statements that she made on earlier occasions and her reasons as to why there is a distinction between the two, and you’ve also heard the Defendant say what his version of his statement or conversation was to his mother. 36 So you’re going to have to work out if it’s been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt what his exact words were, and if you’re satisfied as to what the exact words were, then you may consider that along with finding that a crime has been committed and that the statement was voluntary. (Trial Tr., Vol. V, 9/18/92 at 786:20-789:20). Jacobs argues that the trial court’s charge is constitutionally infirm because it omitted any reference to the Commonwealth’s burden of proving the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, failed to distinguish between the deaths of Tammy and Holly, and “all but directed a verdict on the corpus delicti issue.” (Appellant’s Opening Br. at 40-41). While Jacobs’ criticisms of this portion of the charge are not entirely unfounded, it is apparent that he has neglected to examine the charge as a whole – rather, he has isolated the portion of the charge as it relates specifically to confessions and essentially excluded consideration of the remaining forty pages of the charge. In the charge, the trial judge referred numerous times to the Commonwealth’s burden to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Never did the trial court suggest any other burden of proof or that Jacobs bore any burden whatsoever. Based on the charge as a whole, we find it extremely unlikely that the jury perceived that the Commonwealth’s burden was ever less than beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the trial judge specifically instructed the jury that the murder of Tammy and the murder of 37 Holly required individual findings: And as always, there’s [sic] going to be two separate findings, first that Tammy Mock is dead and second that Holly Jacobs is dead, and I won’t repeat that each time. Please assume that applies to everything I’m going to say. You’ll have two separate findings for each one. (Id. at 804:7-804:12). To the extent that Jacobs argues that the trial court “all but directed a verdict,” this contention also lacks support based on an examination of the charge as a whole. In its general instructions, the trial court charged the jury: Now, how do you make that decision? Well, in effect you, collectively, are the judge of the facts. In effect, there’s [sic] two judges in the case. I’m the judge for the law and you must follow the law as I am now going to give it to you, but you are the judges of the facts and it’s totally up to you to determine exactly what happened and what’s been proved by the Commonwealth and whether it meets their burden and the verdict that flows from that after you apply the law to the facts as you find them. (Id. at 779:11-779:21). Moreover, the trial court specifically reminded the jury of its duty to determine the facts regarding Jacobs’ confession: “Each juror should ultimately decide these questions for himself and thereby individually accept or reject the Defendant’s 38 statement as evidence. You must not allow the fact that I admitted the statement into evidence to influence you in any way during deliberations.” (Id. at 787:9-787:14). The judge further noted that there did “not appear to be a great deal of dispute that a crime was in fact committed, at least in regard to the death of Tammy Mock . . . [but] my saying that doesn’t make it a fact. Nothing is a fact in the case until you as jurors determine it to be a fact.” (Id. at 788:7-788:12) (emphasis added). Contrary to Jacobs’ assertions, the trial court did distinguish the death of Tammy from that of Holly, and did not express an opinion whether a crime had been committed as to Holly. Notwithstanding the adequacy of the instructions as a whole, Jacobs relies on Commonwealth v. Ahlborn, 657 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995), for the proposition that Pennsylvania law requires the trial court to specifically charge the jury to find the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. In Ahlborn, the trial court charged the jury that prior to considering the confession, it must find that a crime had, in fact, occurred. Id. at 521-22. According to the Superior Court, such an instruction failed to convey the reasonable doubt standard and essentially diluted the Commonwealth’s burden of proof. Id. at 522. According to Jacobs, the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury in compliance with Ahlborn violated his federal right to due process. Ahlborn supports the conclusion that the trial court must, as a matter of state law, specifically charge the jury to find the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, even if the trial court has correctly instructed the jury as to the Commonwealth’s overall burden. Nothing in Ahlborn suggests, however, that the 39 trial court’s instruction violated the federal Due Process Clause. Ahlborn examines only a single paragraph in the instruction regarding the defendant’s confession without considering the overall instructions. Id. at 520-22. Such an analysis does not comport with the well-established principle of federal law that a single instruction must be viewed in light of the overall charge. See Cupp, 414 U.S. at 146-47. Therefore, Ahlborn does not and should not govern whether the trial court’s corpus delicti instruction violated Jacobs’ constitutional right to due process.17 The District Court properly rejected this claim on the merits.