Dunbar v. State
| Decision Date | 18 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 30056,30056 |
| Citation | 177 N.E.2d 452,242 Ind. 161 |
| Parties | Eric DUNBAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Patrick D. Sullivan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged, and after trial convicted of burglary in the second degree. The charge alleged that on the 9th day of February, 1960, he broke into an office and an automobile salesroom of one Paul Price and took, among other things, a red tool box, timing light and a Firestone tire.
The assigned error under the motion for a new trial is that the finding and decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under this assignment it is urged that the corpus delicti was not proved by independent evidence aside from the confession.
This necessitates a brief review of the testimony: At the trial, Paul Price, the owner of the building burglarized, testified that the door to his building in question had been locked the night before and that in the morning he discovered that a glass pane therein had been broken and the door opened; that upon entering the building, he discovered that a red tool box and tools which were his, a timing light and a Firestone tire were missing from his shop, which were there previously; that the total value of this property was approximately $300.
The evidence further shows that certain police officers took the stand and stated that the defendant had confessed to the burglary in question and that he had informed them where they might find the stolen property. The officers further stated that they made a search for the property at the places in question and discovered the tool box, the timing light and the tire. The discovery of this property at the places indicated by the appellant is independent evidence of some corroborative value in support of proof of the corpus delicti.
It appears to us that this evidence, independent of the confession, establishes the corpus delicti. In Griffiths v. The State, 1904, 163 Ind. 555, at page 559, 72 N.E. 563, at page 565, we stated:
'* * * We think that the rule concerning the corpus delicti is largely one of caution, and that, where the corroborating circumstances so far supplement the confession as to make it clear that the crime charged was committed, a conviction should not be overthrown for the want of evidence.'
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove corpus delicti and to corroborate the confession to make the confession admissible. Parker v. State, 1949, 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442.
In this case the discovery of the stolen articles in the locations given by the appellant in his confession is corroborative of the confession and admissible as a part of the corpus delicti. We so held in Watts v. State, 1950, 229 Ind. 80, 95 N.E.2d 570.
Appellant relies primarily upon the case of Gaines v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 262, 132 N.E. 580. An examination of that case shows that the conviction appealed from was based entirely upon admissions made by the appellant to witnesses. The court held that there was no independent evidence of the commission of the crime other than that of the statement of the appellant. It said: (191 Ind. at page 269, 132 N.E. at page 582)
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State
...this point, vis a vis the position taken in the dissenting opinion herein, is we think the following holding in Dunbar v. State (1961) 242 Ind. 161, 165, 177 N.E.2d 452, 454. 'Likewise, the rule requiring proof of corpus delicti, being only one of caution to prevent a defendant from being c......
-
Pawloski v. State
...independent of a defendant's confession is designed to avoid convictions for a crime that may not have been committed. Dunbar v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 161, 177 N.E.2d 452. In the case at bar the appellant has demonstrated no prejudice to his cause other than a more complete presentation of......
-
Finchum v. State
...is to be considered together with the confession to determine whether the offense is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Dunbar v. State, (1961) 242 Ind. 161, 177 N.E.2d 452. More specifically, in answer to Finchum's argument about intent, the State is not required to independently prove the ......
-
Hopkins v. State, 3--1272A96
...an extrajudicial confession, it is not necessary that the corpus delicti be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Dunbar v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 161, 177 N.E.2d 452; Holding v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 75, 190 N.E.2d 660; Jones v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 235, 252 N.E.2d 572; Hayden v. State......