Corpus delicti is a common law rule that was initiated over 300 hundred years ago in order to

protect those in England who were innocent or even confessed to crimes that they never
committed. Read on to learn more about this rule and then take a quiz.

What is Corpus Delicti?

Corpus delicti is a Latin phrase that means body of the crime. The phrase body here does not
only pertain to a possible corpse, but actually relates to any form of evidence, so it is important
to remember that there is both a literal and figurative association. In regards to criminal
investigations, this concept means that there should be enough evidence to prove that a crime
occurred in order for an individual to be charged for the offense.

Applications of the Rule

Why was the rule designed? It was established to help prevent individuals from being charged
with an offense they didn't commit. In addition, the rule provides a certain amount of protection
for those individuals who suffer from mental illness or mental instability and who may have
confessed to a crime they did not even commit. False confessions, although they don't happen all
the time, do take place.
Corpus delicti applies to all crimes, but it is considered to be an especially important concept
within any murder investigation. There should be a body or at least a body of evidence for police
to work with before they charge someone with a crime. When someone goes missing and these
two things don't exist, police often have a difficult time charging a crime; if there isn't a body or
at least evidence present to prove there was a death, then a person is most likely considered to be
a missing person or a runaway rather than a homicide victim.
However, it should be noted that the prosecution within such an investigation will aim to charge
for a conviction of guilt in a homicide case even if the body is not located, just as long as there is
substantial circumstantial evidence present that ultimately leads beyond a reasonable doubt.

Background

Corpus Delecti (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution
present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular
culture it has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the
production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the
body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a
reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the

crime, corpus delecti refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's
Law Dictionary defines corpus delecti as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."
The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to guard against the hasty and unguarded character
which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction
where no crime has in fact been committed. [1]
Corpus delecti has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession
before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence
must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be
required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.
Corpus Delecti does not typically require proof of each and every element of a crime before an
out-of-court confession becomes admissible. However, it does require independent evidence
showing that the charged crime occured.The principle of corpus delecti requires corroborative
evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the
injury or loss was caused by someones criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require some
independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.
The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates
back at least to the 17th Century, most famously exemplified in Perry's case. [2] There, the
purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a hacked and bloody hat behind. The
defendant was confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder
as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the executions the
alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.[3]
Some states have abandoned the corpus delecti rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness"
standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, in Opper v.
United States[4], the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law corpus delicti rule
and adopted the trustworthiness approach. Under that rule, the government must introduce
substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the
[defendants] statement. But this corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of
the [defendants] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.