Court Opinion

ID: 9734628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:40:04.588262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:49.577851
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Jackson, J.
The question before this Court is whether the trial court erred in overruling the appellant’s motion for a new trial. ■ •
• The appellant alleged, as the basis for a new trial, that the judgment of the court was contrary to law because there was not sufficient corroborative evidence to warrant his conviction, and that the judgment of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence because the State failed to prove that the place alleged to have been burglarized was a place of human habitation. Acts 1905, ch. 189, §239, p. 584, being §9-1607, Burns’ 1956 Replacement, provides that a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating evidence. The evidence in the record before us indicates that the accused was told by one officer that certain charges would not be pressed and by another officer that he would recommend that certain charges against him be dropped. Therefore, if there is not sufficient corroborative evidence in the record to establish the corpus delicti, and more specifically, that the place said *81to be burglarized was a “dwelling house or other place of human habitation” this Court must find that the trial court erred in not sustaining the motion for a new trial.
The majority opinion has admitted that the corpus delicti must be established by evidence independent of the confession of the accused, and while it is true that this corroborative evidence need not of itself be sufficient to justify the conviction of an accused, it must to some degree of certainty establish that a crime has been committed so that coupled with the confession, the guilt of the accused is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the case at bar Robert Huhn, whose home is the one allegedly burglarized, and who allegedly lived at 3220 Lockburn Street testified as a witness for the State of Indiana that “he resided at 322 North Vernon, in Marion County” at the time of the alleged offense. All the evidence adduced was as to the burglary of 3220 Lockburn Street.
Therefore, because the uncontradicted evidence shows that Mr. Huhn did not live at 3220 Lockburn Street, but at “322 North Vernon in Marion County” there is no conflict of evidence to be resolved, there is a complete and total failure of proof of an essential fact, and a failure to prove the corpus delicti, after the admission of the confession in evidence over objection, constitutes' reversible error.
The cause should be reversed and remanded with instructions to sustain appellant’s motion for a new trial.
Note. — Reported in 190 N. E. 2d 660.