Parker v. State, 28472
| Decision Date | 04 January 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 28472,28472 |
| Citation | 228 Ind. 1,89 N.E.2d 442 |
| Parties | PARKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Winfield M. Fox, Terre Haute, N. George Nasser, Terre Haute, Craig & Craig, Brazil, of counsel, for appellant.
Cleon H. Foust, Atty. Gen., Merl M. Wall, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
We have given careful though to the State's petition for a rehearing in this case, but still do not believe the verdict of guilty can be affirmed. We do find, however, two respects wherein our opinion should perhaps be clarified.
We said that an extrajudicial confession will not be admitted in evidence and a conviction will not be upheld until and unless the corpus delicti has been established by clear proof, independent of the confession. In support of this, we cited, among other authorities, Wharton's Criminal Law, 12th Ed., Vol. 1, §§ 359, 360, and we quoted a passage from Wharton's, in which it was stated that the existence of the corpus delicti must be established by direct and positive proof beyond a reasonable doubt independent of the confession. Later we made it clear that the independent corroborative evidence need not establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt. We failed to say, however, that the independent, corroborative evidence could be circumstantial, which the use of the word direct in the quotation from Wharton's seemed to negative. As a matter of fact, Wharton, elsewhere in his treatise, makes it clear that such corroborative evidence may be circumstantial. Wharton, supra, §§ 352, 353. To dispel any doubt upon the subject, we now hold that the independent, corroborative evidence of the corpus delicti, necessary if an extrajudicial confession is to be used, may be circumstantial. Messel v. State, 1911, 176 Ind. 214, 218-219, 95 N.E. 565; Griffiths v. State, 1904, 163 Ind. 555, 559, 72 N.E. 563. See also 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 916c, p. 185.
The literal meaning of the language which we used may, out of context, seem to be that the independent, corroborative evidence of the corpus delicti must precede the confession. We did not have before us, however, the question of order of proof; we were considering the necessity for such proof to uphold a conviction. The order of proof is, as in other cases, within the sound discretion of the trial court, Annotation 127 A.L.R. 1141, but inasmuch as an extrajudicial confession may not be considered and a conviction will not be upheld without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 29661
...value aside from the confession to prove that the crime charged was committed.' Parker v. State, 1949, 228 Ind. 1, 7, 88 N.E.2d 556, 558, 89 N.E.2d 442. A dead body alone is not proof of the corpus delicti in a homicide case; but an identified dead body with marks of violence thereon or sur......
-
Green v. State
...charged was in fact committed by someone would support conviction of Green. In Parker v. State (1949) 228 Ind. 1, 7, 88 N.E.2d 556, 558, 89 N.E.2d 442, the Supreme Court 'In Indiana the independent evidence alone need not be sufficient to establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable dou......
-
United States v. Tanco-Baez, 16-1322
...S.Ct. 194, the Court cited by "cf." and without explanation to Parker v. State, 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556 (1949), reh’g denied, 228 Ind. 1, 89 N.E.2d 442 (1950), in which the Indiana Supreme Court held that "the corroboration required is not of incidental facts stated in the confession but ......
-
Ballard v. State
...921, (Cert.Den. 355 U.S. 898, 78 S.Ct. 273, 2 L.Ed.2d 195)' (Emphasis supplied). 239 Ind. at 184, 154 N.E.2d at 721. In Parker v. State (1949), 228 Ind. 1, 89 N.E.2d 442 (on Rehearing), language is found to the same 'We said that an extrajudicial confession will not be admitted in evidence ......