corpus delicti rule in Florida

2023See Allen, 335 So. 2d at 825 .2 The question 2 Had there in fact been evidence that Pender was observed throwing his firearm “into the river” while being pursued by law enforcement, or that he had been seen doing so by some other witness, the corpus delicti rule 4 thus comes down to whether the State’s proof that Pender shot the victim and then “removed” the firearm from the scene by driving away with it, without more, was the requisite independent substantial evidence to establish the corpus delicti of the crime of tampering with evidence.

2018The corpus-delicti rule turns on the “fundamental principle of law that no person be adjudged guilty of a crime until the state has shown that a crime has been committed.” State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976).

2013We affirm the judgment and sentence because Issue One was not adequately preserved. “[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted in evidence.” Martin v. State, 911 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441, 443 (Fla.1993).

2010As noted above, those cases recognize that generally the corpus delicti rule does not require the State to establish that the defendant is the guilty party as a predicate for the admission of a confession and that the State need only establish “ ‘substantial evidence’ tending to show the commission of the charged crime.” Allen, 335 So.2d at 825 ; see also Burks, 613 So.2d at 443 (citing Allen, 335 So.2d at 825 ).

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2005THE TRUSTWORTHINESS DOCTRINE In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), the United States Supreme Court rejected the traditional corpus delicti rule for the trustworthiness doctrine.

2005THE TRUSTWORTHINESS DOCTRINE In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), the United States Supreme Court rejected the traditional corpus delicti rule for the trustworthiness doctrine.

2024See Bradley, 918 So. 2d at 341 (explaining that section 92.565(2)(c) "creates a bright-line exception [to the corpus delicti rule] for victims under the age of twelve"). 6 the State only needed to present evidence corroborating the trustworthiness of the confession.

2016See Hernandez v. State, 946 So. 2d 1270, 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("When section 92.565 is properly invoked, it replaces the corpus delicti doctrine with the trustworthiness doctrine with respect to the offenses listed in the statute." (citing Geiger, 907 So. 2d at 674 )); Bradley, 918 So. 2d at 340 .

2025Section 92.565 replaces the traditional corpus delicti rule with a trustworthiness test.1 See Geiger v. State, 907 So. 2d 668 , 673–74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

2016So even though section 92.565 replaces the corpus delicti rule with the "trustworthiness doctrine" and "does not require independent proof of each element of the crime in order for a confession to be admitted, there must be some evidence that tends to establish the type of harm for which the defendant is being criminally charged." Geiger v. Sate, 907 So. 2d 668, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (emphasis added).

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2014This court addressed the doctrine of corpus delicti in Snell v. State, 939 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006): “Ordinarily, proof of the corpus delicti of the crime charged is required before a confession or admission against interest may be received in evidence.” Garmon v. State, 772 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2007The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to ensure that no conviction is obtained "based on `derangement, mistake or official fabrication.'" Id. ( quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla. 1976)).

2023See Sciortino v. State, 115 So. 2d 93, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959) (“Direct evidence of one offense may not be used as proof of corpus delicti of another crime.”).

1980There is no question both that accessory after the fact of a felony and the felony itself are entirely separate and distinct offenses and that the mere occurrence of the felony provides no basis whatever for concluding that someone has subsequently aided the felon to escape. [6] *613 The Florida decisions clearly establish that, in applying the corpus delicti rule, not only "must [it] be shown that the specific crime charged had been committed" [e.s.]; Sciortino v. State, 115 So.2d 93, 99 (Fla.2d DCA 1959), [7] but that [t]o establish a prima facie showing sufficient for the corpus delicti, it

2023“The phrase ‘corpus delicti’ refers to proof independent of a confession that the crime charged was in fact committed.” Meyers v. State, 704 So. 2d 1368, 1369 (Fla. 1997) (citing Bassett v. State, 449 So. 2d 803, 807 (Fla. 1984)). “[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted in evidence.” Scott v. State, 147 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Martin v. State, 911 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).

2013We affirm the judgment and sentence because Issue One was not adequately preserved. “[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted in evidence.” Martin v. State, 911 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441, 443 (Fla.1993).

2023“The phrase ‘corpus delicti’ refers to proof independent of a confession that the crime charged was in fact committed.” Meyers v. State, 704 So. 2d 1368, 1369 (Fla. 1997) (citing Bassett v. State, 449 So. 2d 803, 807 (Fla. 1984)). “[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted in evidence.” Scott v. State, 147 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Martin v. State, 911 So. 2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)).

2019Under the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving by substantial evidence that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted into evidence. * Scott v. State, 147 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

2018See Ras , 610 So.2d at 25 ; see also Harrison v. State , 483 So.2d 757 , 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that the corpus delicti doctrine prohibited the appellant's conviction for possession of a firearm where there was no proof of actual or constructive possession of the firearm apart from the appellant's confession).

2018See Ras, 610 So. 2d at 25 ; see also Harrison v. State, 483 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that the corpus delicti doctrine prohibited the appellant's conviction for possession of a firearm where there was no proof of actual or constructive possession of the firearm apart from the appellant's confession).

2018See Ras , 610 So.2d at 25 ; see also Harrison v. State , 483 So.2d 757 , 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that the corpus delicti doctrine prohibited the appellant's conviction for possession of a firearm where there was no proof of actual or constructive possession of the firearm apart from the appellant's confession).

2018See Ras, 610 So. 2d at 25 ; see also Harrison v. State, 483 So. 2d 757, 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that the corpus delicti doctrine prohibited the appellant's conviction for possession of a firearm where there was no proof of actual or constructive possession of the firearm apart from the appellant's confession).

1993To the same effect is Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79, 80 , 134 So. 42, 43 (1931), which held that: "The corpus delicti cannot be proven solely by a confession or admission." (Emphasis added.) The error in exempting admissions from the corpus delicti rule is harmless, however, because, as stated above, all the elements of the crime [4] were proved by direct or circumstantial evidence [5] without dependence on Burks' statements.

1993To the same effect is Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79, 80 , 134 So. 42, 43 (1931), which held that: "The corpus delicti cannot be proven solely by a confession or admission." (Emphasis added.) The error in exempting admissions from the corpus delicti rule is harmless, however, because, as stated above, all the elements of the crime [4] were proved by direct or circumstantial evidence [5] without dependence on Burks' statements.

2006It was not necessary for the police independently to establish the corpus delicti in order to have probable cause. [12] See State v. Jones, 198 Ariz. 18 , 6 P.3d 323, 329 (2000) ("Different from a determination of probable cause, the corpus delicti rule involves a finding. . . of independent evidence to support a conviction, not whether probable cause exists to support a criminal charge." (citation *1135 omitted)); see also J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) (stating that "the State cannot offer into evidence an admission against interest to prove an element of the charged offense

2002NOTES [1] Although the supreme court rejected the opportunity to abolish the corpus delicti rule in its entirety in J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376 (Fla.1998), I have found no Florida Supreme Court case which discussed the application of the rule in attempt or conspiracy cases. [2] It appears that the Florida Legislature is leaning in that direction.

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2019See A.P. v. State , 250 So.3d 799 , 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (describing circumstances in which "the identity of the guilty party and *833 the proof that a crime occurred" are so intertwined that proof of corpus delicti and guilty agency are the same (quoting Spanish v. State , 45 So.2d 753 , 754 (Fla. 1950) )); State v. Walton , 42 So.3d 902 , 906-07 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (stating that the defendant's identity as the driver may become a part of the corpus delicti where the evidence does not establish a crime without it).

2010On appeal, this court observed that under the corpus delicti rule, “[t]he State 'must at least show the existence of each element of the crime’ to authorize the introduction of a defendant’s admission or confession.” Id. (quoting Allen, 335 So.2d at 825 ).

2008For this reason, I agree with Judge Altenbernd's conclusion in State v. Colorado, 890 So.2d 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (Altenbernd, C.J., concurring), that Florida's current application of the corpus delicti rule in this context is misguided.

2014This court addressed the doctrine of corpus delicti in Snell v. State, 939 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006): “Ordinarily, proof of the corpus delicti of the crime charged is required before a confession or admission against interest may be received in evidence.” Garmon v. State, 772 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

2011See Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441, 444 (Fla.1993) ("The corpus delicti cannot be proven solely by a confession or admission.") (quoting Deiterle v. State, 101 Fla. 79 , 134 So. 42, 43 (1931)); Snell v. State, 939 So.2d 1175, 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ("Ordinarily, proof of the corpus delicti of the crime charged is required before a confession or admission against interest may be received in evidence.") (quoting Garmon v. State, 772 So.2d 43, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). [7] Thus, in this case, harmful error occurred not only because of the erroneous admission of A.C.'s statements, but also because

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.

2025See Geiger, 907 So. 2d at 675–76 (discussing United States v. Lee, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (D.

2025See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440, 447 (Alaska 1972); People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567 , 573–77 (Colo. 2013); State v. Hafford, 746 A.2d 150, 174 (Conn. 2000); State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw. 1960); State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 139 (Iowa 2011); State v. Dern, 362 P.3d 566 , 582–83 (Kan. 2015); State v. Zysk, 465 A.2d 480, 483 (N.H. 1983); State v. Wilson, 248 P.3d 315, 321 (N.M. 2010); Fontenot v. State, 881 P.2d 69 , 77–78 (Okla.