Opinion ID: 1099668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether corpus delicti was established sufficiently as to the victim's identification to support the conviction.

Text: ¶ 10. Hodge next asserts that the corpus delicti was not established because no one at trial identified the body found in the field. The testimony elicited at trial concerning the identity of the body was that of Dr. Haynes who identified the body as that of Thomas based on information from an officer of authority, the county coroner medical examiner investigator of Hinds County. Hodge contends that the identification of the victim was inadequate. ¶ 11. To establish the corpus delicti in a homicide case, there must be proof of (1) death of a human being and (2) a criminal agency causing that death. Nelson v. State, 722 So.2d 656, 660 (Miss. 1998) (citing May v. State, 524 So.2d 957, 966 (Miss.1988)). In the instant case there was undoubtedly the death of a human being. The second element was also satisfied by Dr. Haynes's testimony that Thomas was shot in the back and in the back of the head and that Thomas bled to death. Dr. Haynes's testimony satisfies the second element based upon Caldwell v. State, 347 So.2d 1389, 1390 (Miss.1977), in which we held that evidence of trajectory and path of a bullet causes us to conclude that the evidence and reasonable inferences which the jury was justified in drawing from the testimony sufficiently establishes criminal agency. Furthermore, Hodge's confession also establishes corpus delicti. Pinter v. State, 203 Miss. 344, 348, 34 So.2d 723, 724 (1948) (holding that confession together with dismembered relics of the identified body established the corpus delicti). This assignment of error is likewise without merit.