State v. Davis
Decision Date | 10 June 1977 |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Walter E. DAVIS, Jr. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Peter J. Goranites, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.
Paul W. McElhinney, Sanford, David L. Brooks, North Berwick, Gerald C. Nason, Biddeford, for defendant.
Before DUFRESNE, C. J., and WEATHERBEE, * POMEROY, WERNICK and ARCHIBALD, JJ.
A York County jury, after a trial, has declared that beyond a reasonable doubt Walter E. Davis, Jr., killed Troy Belanger under such circumstances as to make such killing punishable as murder. Former 17 M.R.S.A. § 2651. He now appeals, 1 claiming as error that certain admissions against his interest and/or confessions were admitted into evidence at a time when the corpus delicti had not been established.
Maine has long adhered to the doctrine that a defendant's confession alone is not sufficient proof of the commission of a crime. It follows, then, if a conviction is to be justified, there must be proof independent of a confession that a crime was committed. State v. Levesque, 146 Me. 351, 81 A.2d 665 (1951). So also is this the law in a majority of the jurisdictions in this country. 103 Pa.L.Rev. 638, 641. The underlying reason for the doctrine rests in the desire to safeguard against the possibility of a confession for an alleged crime not in fact committed. State v. Hoffses, 147 Me. 221, 224, 85 A.2d 919, 921 (1952).
In the case now before us, no claim is made that the evidence, at the conclusion of all the testimony, independently of the confessions, was not adequate proof of the corpus delicti. All that is claimed is that trial error resulted when a confession allegedly made by the appellant to the victim's former wife was admitted into evidence at a time when the corpus delicti had not been established by such credible evidence as would create a really substantial belief that the crime charged had been committed by someone. 2
The record reveals that after certain witnesses had testified with respect to the conditions existing at the scene of the alleged crime and a pathologist had testified as to the cause of decedent's death, the victim's former wife was allowed to testify, without objection being made on behalf of appellant, that shortly after the killing the appellant called her on the telephone and confessed that he was the killer of her former husband, Troy Belanger. At that time, she said, he gave details as to how and why he had done so. Also received in evidence without objection was considerable testimony concerning antecedent threats made by appellant.
Under all the circumstances reflected in the record, we must treat the points on appeal now urged upon us as alleged error not properly saved. We will review the case only to determine whether or not the admission into evidence of the confession made to Mrs. Belanger was "obvious error(s) or defect(s) affecting substantial rights." Rule 52(b), M.R.Crim.P.
We conclude the corpus delicti of the crime of unlawful homicide punishable as murder had been adequately established prior to the receipt into evidence of the confession made to Mrs. Belanger. It was therefore not error to allow the confession into evidence.
It is now well-established law in Maine that the corpus delicti of the crime of unlawful homicide punishable as murder consists of:
(1) evidence creating a substantial belief that the identity of the deceased is the person named in the indictment as the victim;
(2) evidence creating a substantial belief that the crime charged had been committed by someone.
State v. Wardwell, 158 Me. 307, 183 A.2d 896 (1962). See also State v. Grant, supra; State v. Lund, Me., 266 A.2d 869 (1970).
At the time the confession made to Mrs. Belanger was received in evidence without objection, the state had clearly established that the deceased was ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Anderson
...of their incriminating extrajudicial statements and that it was reversible error to admit the same in evidence. True, in State v. Davis, Me., 374 A.2d 322 (1977), we stated "(i)t is now well-established law in Maine that the corpus delicti of the crime of unlawful homicide punishable as mur......
-
State v. Curlew
...admitting in evidence a confession or admission of guilt. 5 A variety of reasons support the preferred practice. Cf. State v. Davis, 374 A.2d 322, 323 (Me.1977) (corpus delicti rule seeks to prevent conviction based on confession for crime not in fact committed); State v. Lafferty, 309 A.2d......
-
State v. Libby
...always been "the desire to safeguard against the possibility of a confession for an alleged crime not in fact committed." State v. Davis, 374 A.2d 322, 323 (Me.1977). See also State v. Anderson, 409 A.2d 1290, 1300 (Me.1979); State v. Grant, 284 A.2d 674, 675 (Me.1971). The danger of false ......
-
State v. Shanahan
...as the victim; (and) (2) evidence creating a substantial belief that the crime charged had been committed by someone." State v. Davis, Me., 374 A.2d 322, 324 (1977). It is not open to dispute, here, that the State satisfied the first element of the Corpus delicti rule by proving that Teresa......