Opinion ID: 1462658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Was defendant's confession admitted in evidence without prior proof of the corpus delicti and did the Court err in dismissing defendant's demurrer to the evidence?

Text: Contrary to appellant's contention that the corpus delicti had not been proved prior to the admission of his confession, there was ample evidence before appellant's confessions were introduced that Smith, the alleged victim of the murder, was actually dead and that his death took place as a result of a felonious act or under circumstances which were consistent with the crime, namely, his dead body was found buried in defendant's premises and his body contained shotgun discs, wadding and pellets: Commonwealth v. Kravitz, 400 Pa. 198, 161 A. 2d 861; Commonwealth v. Frazier, 411 Pa. 195, 191 A. 2d 369; Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, 94 A. 2d 743; Commonwealth v. Lettrich, 346 Pa. 497, 31 A. 2d 155; Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 16 A. 2d 401; Commonwealth v. Stokes, 409 Pa. 268, 186 A. 2d 5; Commonwealth v. Ross, 403 Pa. 358, 169 A. 2d 780; Commonwealth ex rel. Lagana v. Day, 385 Pa. 338, 123 A. 2d 172. In Commonwealth v. Kravitz, 400 Pa. 198, 161 A. 2d 861, the Court, quoting from Commonwealth v. Homeyer, 373 Pa. 150, said (page 209): `. . . The Commonwealth in such a case, in order to establish the corpus delicti, must prove (1) that the alleged victim is dead, and (2) that the death occurred as a result of a felonious act. The corpus delicti, like other facts, may be shown by circumstantial evidence; it is sufficient if these circumstances are consistent with crime even though they are also consistent with suicide or accident; if it were otherwise, it would be impossible in many cases, where there were no eye witnesses, to convict a criminal: [citing cases].' The evidence in this case overwhelmingly meets the tests set forth in the foregoing authorities.