corpus delicti rule in North Carolina

2019Instead, where "the State relies solely on [a] defendant's confession, the State must meet the additional burden imposed by the corpus delicti rule," State v. Sweat , 366 N.C. 79 , 85, 727 S.E.2d 691 , 695 (2012), which requires some level of independent corroborative evidence in order "to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime that was never committed." Parker , 315 N.C. at 229 , 337 S.E.2d at 491 (quotation marks omitted).

2019Instead, where "the State relies solely on [a] defendant's confession, the State must meet the additional burden imposed by the corpus delicti rule," State v. Sweat , 366 N.C. 79 , 85, 727 S.E.2d 691 , 695 (2012), which requires some level of independent corroborative evidence in order "to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime that was never committed." Parker , 315 N.C. at 229 , 337 S.E.2d at 491 (quotation marks omitted).

2018To satisfy the corpus delicti rule in North Carolina, an extrajudicial confession must be supported by "substantial independent evidence tending to furnish strong corroboration of essential facts contained in defendant's confession so as to establish trustworthiness of the confession." State v. Trexler , 316 N.C. 528 , 531-32, 342 S.E.2d 878 , 880-81 (1986).

2018To satisfy the corpus delicti rule in North Carolina, an extrajudicial confession must be supported by "substantial independent evidence tending to furnish strong corroboration of essential facts contained in defendant's confession so as to establish trustworthiness of the confession." State v. Trexler , 316 N.C. 528 , 531-32, 342 S.E.2d 878 , 880-81 (1986).

2023See State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147, 153 , 749 S.E.2d 271, 276 (2013) (carefully applying the trustworthiness version of the corpus delicti rule is especially important in those cases where there is no body to be found).

2023See State v. Cox, 367 N.C. 147, 153 , 749 S.E.2d 271, 276 (2013) (carefully applying the trustworthiness version of the corpus delicti rule is especially important in those cases where there is no body to be found).

2018The corpus delicti rule is historically grounded on three policy justifications: (1) to "protect[ ] against those shocking situations in which alleged murder victims turn up alive after their accused killer has been convicted and perhaps executed"; (2) to "ensure[ ] that confessions that are erroneously reported or construed, involuntarily made, mistaken as to law or fact, or falsely volunteered by an insane or mentally disturbed individual cannot be used to falsely convict a defendant"; and (3) "to promote good law enforcement practices [by] requir[ing] thorough investigations of alleged crim

2018The corpus delicti rule is historically grounded on three policy justifications: (1) to "protect[ ] against those shocking situations in which alleged murder victims turn up alive after their accused killer has been convicted and perhaps executed"; (2) to "ensure[ ] that confessions that are erroneously reported or construed, involuntarily made, mistaken as to law or fact, or falsely volunteered by an insane or mentally disturbed individual cannot be used to falsely convict a defendant"; and (3) "to promote good law enforcement practices [by] requir[ing] thorough investigations of alleged crim

1986As stated in State v. Franklin, 308 N.C. 682, 693 , 304 S.E. 2d 579, 586 (1983), “[t]he corpus delicti rule is based on the hesitancy of the law to accept, without adequate corroboration, the extrajudicial confession of a defendant and to avoid convicting a person, solely out of his own mouth, of a crime that was never committed or was committed by someone else.” Until recently, in North Carolina the corpus delicti rule entailed that “ ‘a conviction cannot be sustained upon a naked extra-judicial confession.’ . . .

1986As stated in State v. Franklin, 308 N.C. 682, 693 , 304 S.E. 2d 579, 586 (1983), “[t]he corpus delicti rule is based on the hesitancy of the law to accept, without adequate corroboration, the extrajudicial confession of a defendant and to avoid convicting a person, solely out of his own mouth, of a crime that was never committed or was committed by someone else.” Until recently, in North Carolina the corpus delicti rule entailed that “ ‘a conviction cannot be sustained upon a naked extra-judicial confession.’ . . .

2019Instead, where "the State relies solely on [a] defendant's confession, the State must meet the additional burden imposed by the corpus delicti rule," State v. Sweat , 366 N.C. 79 , 85, 727 S.E.2d 691 , 695 (2012), which requires some level of independent corroborative evidence in order "to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime that was never committed." Parker , 315 N.C. at 229 , 337 S.E.2d at 491 (quotation marks omitted).

2019Instead, where "the State relies solely on [a] defendant's confession, the State must meet the additional burden imposed by the corpus delicti rule," State v. Sweat , 366 N.C. 79 , 85, 727 S.E.2d 691 , 695 (2012), which requires some level of independent corroborative evidence in order "to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime that was never committed." Parker , 315 N.C. at 229 , 337 S.E.2d at 491 (quotation marks omitted).

2023“Whether a defendant’s extrajudicial confession may survive a motion to dismiss depends upon the satisfaction of the corpus delicti rule.” DeJesus, 265 N.C.

2023When the State substantially relies upon an extrajudicial confession, the reviewing court applies the corpus delicti rule “which requires some level of independent corroborative evidence in order to ensure that a person is not convicted of a crime that was never committed.” DeJesus, 265 N.C.

1983There must be independent proof, either direct or circumstantial, of the corpus delicti in order for the conviction to be sustained.' State v. Green, 295 N.C. 244, 248 , 244 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1978); State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303 , 214 S.E.2d 742 (1975)." In his treatise on evidence, Wigmore offers the following insights into the corpus delicti rule: The meaning of the phrase corpus delicti has been the subject of much loose judicial comment, and an apparent sanction has often been given to an unjustifiably broad meaning.

1983There must be independent proof, either direct or circumstantial, of the corpus delicti in order for the conviction to be sustained.' State v. Green, 295 N.C. 244, 248 , 244 S.E.2d 369, 371 (1978); State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303 , 214 S.E.2d 742 (1975)." In his treatise on evidence, Wigmore offers the following insights into the corpus delicti rule: The meaning of the phrase corpus delicti has been the subject of much loose judicial comment, and an apparent sanction has often been given to an unjustifiably broad meaning.

1986The corpus delicti rule therefore required the state to offer into evidence “sufficient extrinsic corroborative circumstances as will, when taken in connection with an accused’s confession, show that the crime was committed and that the accused was the perpetrator . . . .” State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 324 , 214 S.E. 2d 742, 755 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 908 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1213 (1976); State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244 , 81 S.E. 2d 773 (1954).

1986The corpus delicti rule therefore required the state to offer into evidence “sufficient extrinsic corroborative circumstances as will, when taken in connection with an accused’s confession, show that the crime was committed and that the accused was the perpetrator . . . .” State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 324 , 214 S.E. 2d 742, 755 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 908 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1213 (1976); State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244 , 81 S.E. 2d 773 (1954).

2015Ballard's argument is slightly more complicated with respect to the conspiracy charge because, as our Supreme Court has held, in a conspiracy prosecution the corpus delicti is not the act itself but "the conspiracy to do the act." State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710 , 169 S.E. 711 , 712 (1933).

2015Ballard's argument is slightly more complicated with respect to the conspiracy charge because, as our Supreme Court has held, in a conspiracy prosecution the corpus delicti is not the act itself but "the conspiracy to do the act." State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710 , 169 S.E. 711 , 712 (1933).

2011Id. at 236 , 337 S.E.2d at 495 (citing State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw.

1985See Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954); McCormick, Evidence § 145 (3rd ed. 1984); Note, Confession Corroboration in New York: A Replacement for the Corpus Delicti Rule, 46 Fordham L.

2013We apply the corpus delicti rule in light of the standard of review for motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence, which requires the *155 reviewing court to construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99 , 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980).

2013We apply the corpus delicti rule in light of the standard of review for motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence, which requires the *155 reviewing court to construe the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State.” State v. Powell, 299 N.C. 95, 99 , 261 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1980).

2013Id.-, see also State v. Sloan, 316 N.C. 714, 725 , 343 S.E.2d 527, 534 (1986).

2013Id.-, see also State v. Sloan, 316 N.C. 714, 725 , 343 S.E.2d 527, 534 (1986).

2012In Smith we held that the alleged victim’s extrajudicial statement denying that the defendant committed a first-degree sexual offense against her was relevant in holding that the State did not meet its burden under the corpus delicti rule as to that charge. 362 N.C. at 593 , 669 S.E.2d at 306 ; see also State v. Gerlaugh, 134 Ariz. 164, 170 , 654 P.2d 800, 806 (1982) (en banc) (stating that one codefendant’s extrajudicial statement was relevant for purposes of the corpus delicti rule even though the jury could not consider the statement to determine the defendant’s guilt).

2012In Smith we held that the alleged victim’s extrajudicial statement denying that the defendant committed a first-degree sexual offense against her was relevant in holding that the State did not meet its burden under the corpus delicti rule as to that charge. 362 N.C. at 593 , 669 S.E.2d at 306 ; see also State v. Gerlaugh, 134 Ariz. 164, 170 , 654 P.2d 800, 806 (1982) (en banc) (stating that one codefendant’s extrajudicial statement was relevant for purposes of the corpus delicti rule even though the jury could not consider the statement to determine the defendant’s guilt).

2012Chadbourn rev. 1978) (“[Ujnder [the] rule requiring the existence of some corroborative evidence of the corpus delicti, it is for the trial judge to say whether there has been introduced such evidence . . . .”); see also, e.g., State v. Hale, 45 Haw. 269, 274 , 367 P.2d 81, 85 (1961) (“[W]e consider the record as a whole at the close of the prosecution’s case to see if the quantum of the proof of the corpus delicti was sufficient to justify the trial court’s ruling admitting the [confession] into evidence.”).

2012Chadbourn rev. 1978) (“[Ujnder [the] rule requiring the existence of some corroborative evidence of the corpus delicti, it is for the trial judge to say whether there has been introduced such evidence . . . .”); see also, e.g., State v. Hale, 45 Haw. 269, 274 , 367 P.2d 81, 85 (1961) (“[W]e consider the record as a whole at the close of the prosecution’s case to see if the quantum of the proof of the corpus delicti was sufficient to justify the trial court’s ruling admitting the [confession] into evidence.”).

2012See State v. Johnson, 203 N.C.

2011Id. at 236 , 337 S.E.2d at 495 (citing State v. Yoshida, 354 P.2d 986, 990 (Haw.

2008Specifically, he relies on the corpus delicti rule as stated in State v. Sinclair, 43 N.C.App. 709 , 259 S.E.2d 808 (1979), contending that "a felony conviction may not be based upon or sustained by a naked extrajudicial confession of guilt uncorroborated by any other evidence," id. at 711 , 259 S.E.2d at 809 (citation and quotation omitted).

2008Specifically, he relies on the corpus delicti rule as stated in State v. Sinclair, 43 N.C.App. 709 , 259 S.E.2d 808 (1979), contending that "a felony conviction may not be based upon or sustained by a naked extrajudicial confession of guilt uncorroborated by any other evidence," id. at 711 , 259 S.E.2d at 809 (citation and quotation omitted).