Judges: HUTCHISON, Circuit Judge:
Attorneys: Edward F. P. Brigham, for Plaintiff in Error;
Fred H. Davis, Attorney General, and Roy Campbell, Assistant, for the State.
Filed: Apr. 03, 1931
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. On writ of error sued out from the judgment of the Circuit Court to this Court, in an opinion rendered October 22nd, A.D. 1929 (Dieterle vs. State, 98 Fla. 739 ; 124 So. 47 ) the judgment of the trial court was reversed. On February 20th A.D. 1930 an information was filed against the plaintiff in error in the Criminal Court of Record in Dade County, charging him with the crime of mur
Summary: The plaintiff in error was convicted of murder in the second degree in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida. On writ of error sued out from the judgment of the Circuit Court to this Court, in an opinion rendered October 22nd, A.D. 1929 (Dieterle vs. State, 98 Fla. 739 ; 124 So. 47 ) the judgment of the trial court was reversed. On February 20th A.D. 1930 an information was filed against the plaintiff in error in the Criminal Court of Record in Dade County, charging him with the crime of murd..
More
It might be well to call attention to the fact that in the Lambright, Holland, Gantling Tucker cases cited in the above opinion, it was held that the corpus delicti need not be provenbeyond a reasonable doubt before the court would be authorized to allow the introduction of a confession by the accused, but there must be proof before the court tending to show the corpusdelicti before the confession is admissible. It is the province of the court to determine in ruling on the question of admissibility whether there is testimony sufficient to showprima facie that a crime has been committed before allowing a confession or admission to be introduced; but in my opinion the court must have had before it some substantial proof of such corpus delicti before admitting such confessions or admissions. When the evidence is all in, and that tending to prove that the corpus delicti is circumstantial, the doctrine of the Lee case, cited by Judge Hutchison, applies with full force; that is, the jury should not convict the defendant unless, on the evidence, considering it all together, the corpus delicti is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See also Smith vs. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70, which holds that there must be proof of the corpus delicti independent of the confession or admission.
