The Corpus Delicti Rule

brandonmurphy • February 17, 2017

A recent Court of Appeals decision, Shinnock v. State, 18A05-1606-CR-1258 (opinion can be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02091701jts.pdf), highlights the little-known Corpus Delicti Rule in the course of some very unfortunate facts. This case was tried in the Delaware County Circuit Court No. 2. It should be noted that this opinion is still subject to appeal by the State of Indiana to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Corpus Delicti Rule exists so that people are not convicted of crimes solely based on a nonjudicial confession of guilt. Independent proof of the corpus delicti is required before the defendant may be convicted upon a nonjudicial confession.Green v. State, 304 N.E.2d 845, 848 (1973). Proof of the corpus delicti means “proof that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by someone.” Walker v. State, 233 N.E.2d 483, 488 (1968). Before a confession or an incriminating statement may be admitted, there must be some independent evidence of the commission of the crime charged. Workman v. State, 716 N.E.2d 445, 447 (Ind. 1999).

Although the facts of this particular case are disturbing, this is one of the rare occasions that a court has reversed a conviction because the State failed to show a corpus delicti, or independent evidence that a crime had, in fact, been committed. These issues are more frequently seen in appeals of driving cases, such as operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), driving while suspended (DWS) or operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator (HTV) where no one actually witnessed the defendant driving a car, but the defendant then admits to an investigating officer or another witness that they were, in fact, operating a vehicle. Typically, courts have rejected these sorts of arguments and Shinnock may give the Indiana Supreme Court a greater opportunity to clarify the full scope of the corpus delicti rule.

Shifting Blame for Overdose Deaths: The Crime of Dealing Resulting in Death

By Brandon Murphy • March 9, 2023
Prosecutors are too eager to use Indiana's recent and severe Dealing Resulting in Death statute.

Navigating Law Enforcement Interrogation: Deceptive Tactics and Your Rights Against Self-Incrimination

August 31, 2022
Navigating Law Enforcement Interrogation

Murphy Again Named to Rising Stars List

By brandonmurphy • March 10, 2019
Managing Attorney Brandon Murphy was again named to the Super Lawyers’ Rising Star list in the Criminal Defense practice area. To be eligible to be a Rising Star, a candidate must be forty (40) years of age or younger or have fewer than ten (10) years experience in the practice of law. No more than [..] The post Murphy Again Named to Rising Stars List appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

Murphy Named Rising Star by Super Lawyers

By brandonmurphy • February 27, 2018
Managing Attorney Brandon E. Murphy was named as a Rising Star in Criminal Defense in the 2018 publication of Indiana Super Lawyers. To be eligible to be a Rising Star, a candidate must be forty (40) years of age or younger or have fewer than ten (10) years experience in the practice of law. No [..] The post Murphy Named Rising Star by Super Lawyers appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

Court of Appeals Panel Split on Intimidation Charge

By brandonmurphy • April 25, 2016
On April 21, 2016, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Victor Roar’s conviction for intimidation in part because they “conclude[d] that the majority in [an earlier case] did not correctly decide that question.” Roar v. State, 49A02-1506-CR-506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The case the Roar Court was criticizing was C.L. v. State, 2 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct. [..] The post Court of Appeals Panel Split on Intimidation Charge appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

The Limits of Indiana’s Misdemeanor Arrest Statute

By brandonmurphy • January 23, 2016
Law enforcement always has authority to arrest when there is an arrest warrant for the person, and when the police have probable cause to believe the person has committed or attempted to commit a felony. However, there are limits to law enforcement’s power to arrest for a misdemeanor if they do not actually observe the [..] The post The Limits of Indiana’s Misdemeanor Arrest Statute appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

Lessons for Defense Counsel from Making a Murderer

By brandonmurphy • December 28, 2015
One of the most popular recent shows on NetFlix is a series entitled “Making a Murderer,” concerning the investigation and murder trials of Defendants Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey. The “hook” of the show is that Defendant Avery had previously been convicted, and later exonerated, of a brutal rape. Avery spent eighteen (18) years in [..] The post Lessons for Defense Counsel from Making a Murderer appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

The Mysterious Omnibus Date

By brandonmurphy • November 25, 2015
Defendants in criminal matters are frequently confused by the “omnibus date” that the Court sets. Pursuant to statute, the omnibus date “shall” be set by the Court during the initial hearing, and the omnibus date is to be between 45 and 75 days after the initial hearing. See I.C. 35-36-8-1. So what is the omnibus [..] The post The Mysterious Omnibus Date appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.

Cleaning Criminal Records

By brandonmurphy • May 8, 2015
One of the most under-utilized services the attorneys at Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC. provide is the process of cleaning an individual’s criminal record. Under certain circumstances, eligible convictions or arrests can be ordered expunged (or removed) from a person’s criminal history. The Order of Expungement is sent to the Indiana State Central Repository, law [..] The post Cleaning Criminal Records appeared first on Cannon Bruns & Murphy, LLC.