CORPUS DELICTI-BODY OF THE CRIME Courts are limited ONLY to cases and controversies (US Constitution) Article 3 section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, Every case has to have the violation of a legal right because the Government was established to protect and maintain individual rights (Declaration of Independence) The Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” We have held that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965); and Crawford v. Washington (02-9410) 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Supreme courts ruled Without Corpus delicti there can be no crime “In every prosecution for crime it is necessary to establish the “corpus delecti”, i.e., the body or elements of the crime.” People v. Lopez, 62 Ca.Rptr. 47, 254 C.A.2d 185. In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delecti, or the body of the crime itself-i.e., the fact of injury, loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Sapp, 73 P.3d 433, 467 (Cal. 2003) [quoting People v. Alvarez, (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, 46 P.3d 372.]. “Elements of “corpus delecti,” injury or loss or harm and a criminal agency which causes such injury, loss or harm, need only be proven by a “reasonable probability,” i.e., by slight or prima facie proof…” People v. Ramirez, 153 Cal.Rptr. 789, 791, 91 C.A. 132. ““Corpus delecti” of crime consists of fact of injury, loss, or harm, and existence of criminal agency as cause.” People v. Daly, 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 21, 28, 8 CA4th 47. “Generally, “corpus delecti” of crime is (1) the fact of the loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” People v. Dorsey, 118 Cal.Rptr. 362, 43 CA3d 953. There is no requirement of independent evidence of every physical act constituting an element of an offense, so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency. In re I.M., 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 375, 381 (2005). The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements[:] the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. People v. Jones, 949 P.2d 890, 902, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 793, 17 Cal.4th 279. “The corpus delecti rule requires that the corpus delecti or the body or substance of the crime charged be proved independent from the accused’s extrajudicial confession or admissions. The corpus delecti of a crime consists of two elements: (1) the fact of the injury or loss or harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause. [citing] People v Jennings, 53 Cal 3d 334, 279 Cal Rptr 780, 807 P2d 1009, 92 CDOS 2576, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4222, reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 464, 112 S Ct 443…People v Pensinger, 52 Cal 3d 1210, 278 Cal Rptr 640, 805 P2d 899, 91 CDOS 1514, 91 Daily Journal DAR 2504, mod 53 Cal 3d 729a, 91 Daily Journal DAR 4745 and stay gr (Cal) 1991 Cal LEXIS 3318 and reh den. cert den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 290, 112 S Ct 351, 91 Daily Journal DAR 12909, reh den (US) 116 L Ed 2d 821, 112 S Ct 923; State v Pullos, 76 Idaho 369, 283 P2d 590; People v Friedland (1st Dist) 202 Ill App 3d 1094, 148 Ill Dec 415, 560 NE2d 1012; Brown v State, 239 Ind 184, 154 NE2d 720, cert den 361 US 936, 4 L Ed 2d 360, 80 S Ct 375; Joseph v State, 236 Ind 529, 141 NE2d 109, 69 ALR2d 824, cert dism 359 US 117, 3 L Ed 2d 673, 79 S Ct 720; People v Aiken, 66 Mich 460, 33 NW 821; People v Gould, 156 Mich App 413, 402 NW2d 27; State v Simler, 350 Mo 646, 167 SW2d 376; State v Hill, 47 NJ 490, 221 A2d 725; State v Robinson (App. Scioto Co) 83 Ohio L Abs 259, 168 NE2d 328; State v Brown, 103 SC 437, 88 SE 21…there must be sufficient proof of both elements of the corpus delecti beyond a reasonable doubt.” 29A American Jurisprudence Second Ed., Evidence § 1476. “Without standing, there is no actual or justiciable controversy, and courts will not entertain such cases. (3 Witlen, Cal. Procedure (3rd ed. 1985) Actions § 44, pp 70-72.) “Typically, … the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted.” (Allen v. Wright, (1984) 468 U.S. 737, 752…Whether one has standing in a particular case generally revolved around the question whether that person has rights that may suffer some injury, actual or threatened.” Clifford S. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 333, 335. As a general principal, standing to invoke the judicial process requires an actual justiciable controversy as to which the complainant has a real interest in the ultimate adjudication because he or she has either suffered or is about to suffer an injury. People v. Superior Court, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 793. Judicial power generally is the power to adjudicate upon the legal rights of persons and property, with reference to transactions or occurrences existing or already had and closed...The judicial function is to declare the law and define the rights of the parties under it. Frasher v. Rader, 124 Cal. 133, 56 P. 797...A determination of the rights of an individual under the existing laws is an exercise of judicial power...An essential element of judicial power, distinguishing it from legislative power, is that it requires the ascertainment of existing rights. People v. Bird, 300 P. 22, 26-27. , there are 2 elements to corpus delcti injury,loss(damage) redress ability of the court.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 01:52:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015