Corpus delicti is a legal doctrine that requires proof of a crime before guilt can be proven. It applies to any material evidence or evidence of a crime, and was developed to prevent wrongful convictions. The doctrine has had an impact on the admissibility of evidence, but exceptions exist for circumstantial evidence. The US is reconsidering the rule, with some states abolishing it in favor of a corroborating provision.
Corpus delicti is a legal doctrine in the Western jurisprudential system. The term literally means “body of crime” in Latin. Specifically, corpus delicti are the fundamental facts that prove that a crime has actually been committed. Corpus delicti law requires that proof of a crime be established before guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a conviction obtained. At a minimum, it must be proven that a specific injury occurred and that the injury was the result of criminal activity.
The term is sometimes mistakenly thought to apply only to a dead body. Corpus delicti, however, is actually a broad legal concept that can be applied to any material evidence or evidence of a crime in criminal cases. There is a corpus delicti for every crime, from robbery to theft, from tax evasion to murder. For a person accused of arson, the corpus delicti is the property burned. When an individual is accused of theft, it is proof that the property was stolen.
Most scholars agree that the doctrine of corpus delicti dates back to 17th-century England. It was developed in response to cases where defendants were executed for the murders of people who were later found alive. Historically, its purpose was to prevent individuals from being wrongfully convicted. In the Western legal system, several legal principles have been derived from the doctrine.
One of the major repercussions of the doctrine is the effect it has had on the rules on the admissibility of evidence. For example, many legal jurisdictions have a rule that a defendant’s confession alone is not sufficient to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A subsidiary rule is that a defendant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of an accomplice.
There are exceptions to this doctrine. In some cases, it is possible to prove the basic facts that a crime has been committed on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If the prosecution can provide circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, a defendant can be found guilty in the absence of direct or conclusive evidence.
In the United States, the corpus delicti rule is being reconsidered. The federal judicial system and at least 10 states have abolished the doctrine. Its substitution is a corroborating provision that requires the prosecution to provide only some independent evidence that a crime has been committed, even if that evidence does not conclusively establish that a crime has occurred.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
