Opinion ID: 1725241
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the trial court err when it refused to dismiss the indictment for lack of a corpus delicti?

Text: Corpus delicti is defined as the body or substance of the crime. It contains the following two elements which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to show that a crime has actually been committed: (1) the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of a criminal charge and (2) the existence of criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. Poole v. State, 246 Miss. 442, 446, 150 So.2d 429, 431 (1963). Every element, criminal charge, and criminal agency must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 446, 150 So.2d 429. In order to reduce the risk of a defendant being convicted of a crime never committed, this court requires independent proof of corpus delicti beyond extrajudicial admissions or confessions. Bullock v. State, 447 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Miss. 1984). The corpus delicti need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the confession may be used to raise the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Bullock, 447 So.2d at 1286. Cotton argues that this case requires reversal because the only evidence establishing that a crime was committed were his own alleged admissions. In Bullock, this Court reversed the conviction of three individuals for stealing cattle because other than their confessions, there was no evidence that the alleged owner was missing a cow, or in other words, that a crime had been committed. 447 So.2d at 1287. The case sub judice was unlike the situation presented in Bullock where there was no corroborative proof of an actual theft or crime. Although there were no independent witnesses to the crime in this case as pointed out by Cotton, [c]orroborative proof will be held sufficient which satisfies the mind that it is real and not an imaginary crime for which [the] accused has confessed. Poole, 246 Miss. at 447, 150 So.2d at 431-32. Corpus delicti is established where there is any corroborative proof that the crime charged has occurred. Bullock, 447 So.2d at 1286 (citing Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545, 546 (1882)). In the case at hand, there existed independent proof that Cotton shot Dillon in the leg  Dillon was admitted to the hospital with a gun shot wound to his leg. Dr. Jeffcoat even testified that the wound was not consistent with it having been an accident. Dillon stated to Dr. Jeffcoat that someone else besides himself was responsible for the injury. Without objection, two other police officers testified that Dillon, while at the hospital, said that Cotton shot him. Finally, Agent Cotton recovered the weapon from his brother who admitted shooting Dillon. This evidence appears to be sufficient to establish that a crime had been committed and that this conviction was not based upon imaginary events. We therefore find this assignment of error to be without merit.