5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. LaRosagreen2 sentences2015Thus, we abandon the corpus delicti rule because we hold that sound reasons exist for doing so.” People v. LaRosa, 2013 CO 2, ¶ 31 . 2015See, e.g., LaRosa, 2013 CO 2, ¶ 31 (“the rule may operate to obstruct justice”); Lucas, 30 N.J. at 58 (“safeguards for the accused should not be turned into obstacles whereby the guilty can escape just punishment”); Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 28 (“In addition to failing to adequately protect the innocent from the consequences of their false confessions, the corpus delicti rule potentially operates to obstruct justice.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mauchleygreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., LaRosa, 2013 CO 2, ¶ 31 (“the rule may operate to obstruct justice”); Lucas, 30 N.J. at 58 (“safeguards for the accused should not be turned into obstacles whereby the guilty can escape just punishment”); Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 28 (“In addition to failing to adequately protect the innocent from the consequences of their false confessions, the corpus delicti rule potentially operates to obstruct justice.”). 2014LaRosa, 293 P.3d at 570 ; State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 489 (Utah 2003) (unsupported confession may be deemed reliable based on its spontaneity, the absence of threats or promises, and the physical and mental condition of the accused at the time, among other factors).Whatever the plus and minuses of a trustworthiness test — and there are both — the Court, in Opper and Smith, did not jettison the corpus delicti rule for that approach. | 2 | 2 |
Opper v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020One such "workaround" was the United States Supreme Court's "trustworthiness standard," which held that for federal law purposes, the government may use the accused's statements to establish the corpus delicti of the alleged crime as long as there is evidence that "'tend[s] to establish the trustworthiness of the [accused's] statement.'" 303 20 Kan. at 406 (quoting Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 , 75 S. Ct. 158 , 99 L. 2014Cir. 1937), required “corroboration . . . consisting] of substantial evidence .. . tending] to establish the whole of the corpus delicti.” Opper, 348 U.S. at 93 . [2] The Court then explained its preference for the Daeche application of the corpus delicti rule this way: “[W]e think the better rule to be that the corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti. | 1 | 3 |
Daeche v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015Criticisms of the Formal Corpus Delicti Rule In 1918, Judge Learned Hand questioned whether the corpus delicti rule “has in fact any substantial necessity in justice” and answered on behalf of the court in Daeche v. United States, 250 F. 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1918), that “the court was much disposed to doubt.” Nearly 100 years later the debate over the efficacy of the formal corpus delicti rule continues. 2015Criticisms of the Formal Corpus Delicti Rule In 1918, Judge Learned Hand questioned whether the corpus delicti rule “has in fact any substantial necessity in justice” and answered on behalf of the court in Daeche v. United States, 250 F. 566, 571 (2d Cir. 1918), that “the court was much disposed to doubt.” Nearly 100 years later the debate over the efficacy of the formal corpus delicti rule continues. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Waddellgreen2 sentences2014In the case State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994), significant confusion concerning how to conduct a proper corpus delicti analysis was introduced into Kansas caselaw. 2014In the case State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994), significant confusion concerning how to conduct a proper corpus delicti analysis was introduced into Kansas caselaw. | 1 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Bishopgreen2 sentences2015After discussing the difficulties courts have encountered with the rule, the authors of McCormick on Evidence have observed that application of the rule takes its toll because its “complexity.. . tends only to detract from the requiremenbs real function.» 1 McCormick on Evidence § 148, p. 817 (7th ed. 2013) (hereinafter McCormick); see State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22, 51 (Tenn.), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 120 (2014) (compiling various criticisms on this point). 2014The United States Supreme Court largely led the way by adopting what is known as the ‘trustworthiness’ standard in [Smith and Opper decided] the same day in 1954.” Bishop, 431 S.W.3d at 51 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Pylegreen2 sentences2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t 2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 1 |
Miller, Christopher Adriangreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., State v. Morgan, 204 Ariz. 166, 172-73 , 61 P.3d 460 (Ct. App. 2002) (evidence established commission of several sexual crimes closely related to sexual conduct, although evidence did not show one particular incident absent confession); Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990) (temporal relationship between the offenses sufficiently proximate that introduction of extrajudicial confession did not violate policies supporting corpus delicti rule); Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 927 (Tex. Crim. 2015) (when the temporal relationship between the offenses is sufficiently prox | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lucasgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., LaRosa, 2013 CO 2, ¶ 31 (“the rule may operate to obstruct justice”); Lucas, 30 N.J. at 58 (“safeguards for the accused should not be turned into obstacles whereby the guilty can escape just punishment”); Mauchley, 2003 UT 10, ¶ 28 (“In addition to failing to adequately protect the innocent from the consequences of their false confessions, the corpus delicti rule potentially operates to obstruct justice.”). | 1 | 1 |
Willoughby v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., State v. Morgan, 204 Ariz. 166, 172-73 , 61 P.3d 460 (Ct. App. 2002) (evidence established commission of several sexual crimes closely related to sexual conduct, although evidence did not show one particular incident absent confession); Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990) (temporal relationship between the offenses sufficiently proximate that introduction of extrajudicial confession did not violate policies supporting corpus delicti rule); Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 927 (Tex. Crim. 2015) (when the temporal relationship between the offenses is sufficiently prox | 1 | 1 |
State v. Daughertygreen2 sentences2015See State v. Daugherty, 173 Ariz. 548 , 845 P.2d 474, 477-78 (Ct. App.1992) (excluding application of the corpus delicti rule to various crimes). 2015See State v. Daugherty, 173 Ariz. 548 , 845 P.2d 474, 477-78 (Ct. App.1992) (excluding application of the corpus delicti rule to various crimes). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grissomgreen1 sentence2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morgangreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Morgan, 204 Ariz. 166, 172-73 , 61 P.3d 460 (Ct. App. 2002) (evidence established commission of several sexual crimes closely related to sexual conduct, although evidence did not show one particular incident absent confession); Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990) (temporal relationship between the offenses sufficiently proximate that introduction of extrajudicial confession did not violate policies supporting corpus delicti rule); Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 927 (Tex. Crim. 2015) (when the temporal relationship between the offenses is sufficiently prox 2015See, e.g., State v. Morgan, 204 Ariz. 166, 172-73 , 61 P.3d 460 (Ct. App. 2002) (evidence established commission of several sexual crimes closely related to sexual conduct, although evidence did not show one particular incident absent confession); Willoughby v. State, 552 N.E.2d 462, 467 (Ind. 1990) (temporal relationship between the offenses sufficiently proximate that introduction of extrajudicial confession did not violate policies supporting corpus delicti rule); Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 927 (Tex. Crim. 2015) (when the temporal relationship between the offenses is sufficiently prox | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2015After discussing the difficulties courts have encountered with the rule, the authors of McCormick on Evidence have observed that application of the rule takes its toll because its “complexity.. . tends only to detract from the requiremenbs real function.» 1 McCormick on Evidence § 148, p. 817 (7th ed. 2013) (hereinafter McCormick); see State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22, 51 (Tenn.), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 120 (2014) (compiling various criticisms on this point). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reddishgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 617-19 , 859 A.2d 1173 (2004); Weisser, 141 N.M. at 100 ; State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 , 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985). 2014See, e.g., State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 617-19 , 859 A.2d 1173 (2004); Weisser, 141 N.M. at 100 ; State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 , 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
Wong Sun v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014The Supreme Court again discussed the corpus delicti rule in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488-89 , 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. 2014The Supreme Court again discussed the corpus delicti rule in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488-89 , 83 S. Ct. 407 , 9 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dern
green
2 sentences2024Our Supreme Court provided a detailed analysis of the corpus delicti rule in State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 399-411 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015), where the defendant was also convicted of aggravated indecent liberties of a child. 2024Our Supreme Court provided a detailed analysis of the corpus delicti rule in State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 399-411 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015), where the defendant was also convicted of aggravated indecent liberties of a child. | 3 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Dang
neutral
2 sentences2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t 2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t 2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Bradford
green
2 sentences2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t 2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Higdon
green
2 sentences2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t 2015For example, “[t]he States prima facie showing of corpus delicti must be made independently of admissions or confessions of a defendant.” State v. Dang, 267 Kan. 198, 208 , 978 P.2d 277 (1999) (citing State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 432 , 532 P.2d 1309 [1975]); see also, e.g., State v. Waddell, 255 Kan. 424, 432-33 , 874 P.2d 651 (1994) (“A conviction will be upheld if tangible coipus delicti evidence is proved outside that of the confession.”); State v. Bradford, 254 Kan. 133, 139 , 864 P.2d 680 (1993) (adopting analysis that “evidence independent of appellant’s confession was required to show t | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. McGill
green
2 sentences2015Numerous constitutional provisions provide such protections and the corpus delicti rule has never been understood to implicate constitutional concerns.” State v. McGill, 50 Kan. 2015App. 2d 208, 226 , 328 P.3d 554 (2014) (Stegall, J., concurring). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Todd James Suriner
green
2 sentences2014State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81, 88 , 294 P.3d 1093 (2013) (Rather than “attempting] to fashion” a substitute for the corpus delicti rule, the court held “the jury can give a defendant’s extrajudicial confession or statement whatever weight it deems appropriate along with all of the other evidence when deciding whether the State has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”). [3] Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court expressly declined to replace the corpus delicti rule with a trustworthiness test. 2014State v. Suriner, 154 Idaho 81, 88 , 294 P.3d 1093 (2013) (Rather than “attempting] to fashion” a substitute for the corpus delicti rule, the court held “the jury can give a defendant’s extrajudicial confession or statement whatever weight it deems appropriate along with all of the other evidence when deciding whether the State has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”). [3] Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court expressly declined to replace the corpus delicti rule with a trustworthiness test. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Warszower v. United States
green
2 sentences2014Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 347 , 61 S. Ct. 603 , 85 L. 2014Warszower v. United States, 312 U.S. 342, 347 , 61 S. Ct. 603 , 85 L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Smith v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Calderon
green
2 sentences2014In United States v. Calderon, 348 U.S. 160, 165 , 75 S. Ct. 186 , 99 L. 2014The Court reiterated that aspect of the corpus delicti rule in Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 490 n.15 (“[Ojne uncorroborated admission by the accused does not, standing alone, corroborate an unverified confession.” [citing Calderon, 348 U.S. at 165 ]). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Cardwell
green
2 sentences2014Thus, the Cardwell court modified the strict formalized ap plication of the corpus delicti rule and established that in certain cases the corpus delicti “may be established by evidence of admissions of guilt by the accused, supported by circumstantial evidence tending to corroborate the admissions, provided all the evidence is sufficient in the estimation of the jury and trial court to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis added.) 90 Kan. at 609 . 2014This modification was premised on the Cardwell court’s recognition of “the reasonable rule that the law demands, and only demands, the best proof of the corpus delicti which, in the nature of the case, is attainable.” 90 Kan. at 609 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Bell green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
RAYYIS v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2014Rayyis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 138, 149 , 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 (2005) (noting and following “long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the [corpus delicti] rule to preliminary hearings); Sheriff v. Middleton, 112 Nev. 956, 961-62 , 920 P.2d 282 (1996) (applying rule in preliminary hearing, thereby requiring prosecution to produce some independent evidence of corpus delicti); but see State ex rel. 2014Rayyis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 138, 149 , 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 (2005) (noting and following “long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the [corpus delicti] rule to preliminary hearings); Sheriff v. Middleton, 112 Nev. 956, 961-62 , 920 P.2d 282 (1996) (applying rule in preliminary hearing, thereby requiring prosecution to produce some independent evidence of corpus delicti); but see State ex rel. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 617-19 , 859 A.2d 1173 (2004); Weisser, 141 N.M. at 100 ; State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 , 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985). 2014See, e.g., State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 617-19 , 859 A.2d 1173 (2004); Weisser, 141 N.M. at 100 ; State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 , 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Weisser
green
1 sentence2014See, e.g., State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 617-19 , 859 A.2d 1173 (2004); Weisser, 141 N.M. at 100 ; State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 , 337 S.E.2d 487 (1985). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sheriff, Washoe County v. Middleton
green
2 sentences2014Rayyis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 138, 149 , 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 (2005) (noting and following “long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the [corpus delicti] rule to preliminary hearings); Sheriff v. Middleton, 112 Nev. 956, 961-62 , 920 P.2d 282 (1996) (applying rule in preliminary hearing, thereby requiring prosecution to produce some independent evidence of corpus delicti); but see State ex rel. 2014Rayyis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 138, 149 , 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 (2005) (noting and following “long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the [corpus delicti] rule to preliminary hearings); Sheriff v. Middleton, 112 Nev. 956, 961-62 , 920 P.2d 282 (1996) (applying rule in preliminary hearing, thereby requiring prosecution to produce some independent evidence of corpus delicti); but see State ex rel. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.