Bolden v. State

• Decision Date: 20 February 1911
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: ARCH BOLDEN v. STATE

54 So. 241

98 Miss. 723

ARCH BOLDEN v. STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 20, 1911

October 1910

APPEAL from circuit court of Itawamba county, HON. JNO. H. MITCHELL Judge.

Arch Bolden was convicted of arson and appeals. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Clayton Mitchell & Clayton, for appellant.

The fourth assignment of error is as follows:

"The court erred in admitting the confession of defendant testified to by the witness Bunk Ruff, because the corpus delicti had not previously been proven."

Let, us first determine what constitutes the corpus delicti in a case of arson. This court has recently settled this matter.

"The corpus delicti in a case of arson consists not only in the proof of the burning of the house, or other things burnt, but of criminal agency in causing the burning." Spears v. State, 92 Miss. 619.

We feel sure that in the Spears case the circumstances proven, from which a criminal agency was deduced, are far stronger than in the case at bar.

The presumption of law is that the burning was accidental and the contrary must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. 3 Cyc. 1003.

The Spears case is reported in 16 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 285, and in the note thereto will be found a full discussion of this question of the corpus delicti in arson cases. We refer to State v. Pienick (Wash.), 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 987.

This case illustrates the true rule, which has always been recognized by this court, that the circumstances relied upon to show the criminal agency must be of such a character and so connected as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of defendant's guilt and we respectfully submit that this case falls far short of this.

James R. McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for appellee.

Counsel insists that the corpus delicti had not been proved and that, therefore, the admission in evidence of the defendant's confession to Bunk Ruff was error.

Our court has held in the Spears decision, 92 Miss. 619, and this seems to follow the best authorities, that the corpus delicti in arson consists not only of the proof of burning, but of the existence of criminal agency, thus overruling Sam's case, 33rd Miss. Bearing this in mind, I refer your honors to the discussion of the subject under the heading "Corpus Delicti," in vol. e, Enc. of Evidence, pages 665 and 666, where the writer says that "it is now well established that the uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions of the defendant may be considered as evidence of the corpus delicti in connection with other facts and circumstances tending to show the defendant's guilty connection with the offense charged; and that the facts and circumstances ascertained by reason of such confessions are competent evidence of the corpus delicti, citing Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 473; Heard v. State, 59 Miss. 545, and many other cases.

I quote from the Heard case as follows:

"Where there has been a confession by the accused, much slighter proof is required to establish the corpus delicti than would be necessary where the state must make out the entire case unaided by a confession. Any corroborative proof in such a case will be held sufficient which satisfies the mind that it is a real and not an imaginary crime which the accused has confessed, and the fact that he was the guilty party may be found by the jury, on proof much slighter than that ordinarily essential."

In the same volume, under the head of "Confessions," the writer on page 357 says, in substance, that although there must be independent evidence to prove corpus delicti, still it need not be direct or positive, but may be proved by circumstances corroborating the confession; and the confession itself may be considered together with other evidence as establishing the fact that a crime was committed.

The editor's notes in the Spears case, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 285, are indeed very valuable, and I invite a careful reading of the same; a few of them will be...