Corpus Delecti - Revision history

Durankar: /* Background */

2010-12-07T15:21:38Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 7 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture ~~this~~ has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."		''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture it has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

	The purpose of the ''corpus delicti'' rule is to guard against “the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” <ref>Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940)</ref>		The purpose of the ''corpus delicti'' rule is to guard against “the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” <ref>Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940)</ref>
Line 6:		Line 6:
	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

	Corpus Delecti does not typically require proof of each and every element of a crime before an out-of-court confession becomes admissible. However, it does require independent evidence showing that the charged crime occured.The principle of ''corpus delecti'' requires corroborative evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the		''Corpus Delecti'' does not typically require proof of each and every element of a crime before an out-of-court confession becomes admissible. However, it does require independent evidence showing that the charged crime occured.The principle of ''corpus delecti'' requires corroborative evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the
	injury or loss was caused by someone’s criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require ~~a third element:~~ some independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.		injury or loss was caused by someone’s criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require some independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.

	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th ~~century Perry’s Case~~ <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, ~~in which~~ the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was ~~a suspect, and he soon~~ confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the ~~execution~~ the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th Century, most famously exemplified in Perry's case. <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref> There, the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the executions the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

	Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, In Opper v. United States<ref>Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954)</ref>, the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law ''corpus delicti'' rule and adopted the “trustworthiness” approach. Under that rule, the government must “introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant’s] statement.” But this “corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant’s] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.”		Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, in ''Opper v. United States''<ref>Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954)</ref>, the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law ''corpus delicti'' rule and adopted the “trustworthiness” approach. Under that rule, the government must “introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant’s] statement.” But this “corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant’s] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.”

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:42:31Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 5 December 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture this has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."		''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture this has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

	The purpose of the ''corpus delicti'' rule is to guard against “the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” <ref>/Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940)</ref>		The purpose of the ''corpus delicti'' rule is to guard against “the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” <ref>Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940)</ref>

	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

Ibjadmin at 20:42, 5 December 2010

2010-12-05T20:42:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 5 December 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture this has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."		''Corpus Delecti'' (literally, "The Body of the Crime") is the requirement that the prosecution present actual evidence that a crime was committed in order to convict a defendant. In popular culture this has often been stated that an individual cannot be convicted of homicide without the production of the dead body. However, an individual may be convicted of homicide even if the body cannot be found, as long as there is enough circumstantial evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual committed the crime. Rather than the literal body of the crime, ''corpus delect''i refers to the body of evidence that a crime was committed. Thus, Black's Law Dictionary defines ''corpus delecti'' as " "the fact of a crime having been actually committed."

			The purpose of the ''corpus delicti'' rule is to guard against “the hasty and unguarded character which is often attached to confessions and admissions and the consequent danger of a conviction where no crime has in fact been committed.” <ref>/Commonwealth v. Turza, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (Pa. 1940)</ref>

	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

	The principle of ''corpus delecti'' requires corroborative evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the		Corpus Delecti does not typically require proof of each and every element of a crime before an out-of-court confession becomes admissible. However, it does require independent evidence showing that the charged crime occured.The principle of ''corpus delecti'' requires corroborative evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the
	injury or loss was caused by someone’s criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require a third element: some independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.		injury or loss was caused by someone’s criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require a third element: some independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:38:01Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:38, 5 December 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

	Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, In Opper v. United States<ref>Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954)</ref>, the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law corpus delicti rule and adopted the “trustworthiness” approach. Under that rule, the government must “introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant’s] statement.” But this “corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant’s] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.”		Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, In Opper v. United States<ref>Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954)</ref>, the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law ''corpus delicti'' rule and adopted the “trustworthiness” approach. Under that rule, the government must “introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant’s] statement.” But this “corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant’s] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.”

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:36:00Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:36, 5 December 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:

	----		----
	See [[Evidence]]		See [[Defenses]], [[Evidence]]

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:35:27Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 5 December 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

	Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence.		Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence. For instance, In Opper v. United States<ref>Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 (1954)</ref>, the United States Supreme Court rejected the common law corpus delicti rule and adopted the “trustworthiness” approach. Under that rule, the government must “introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant’s] statement.” But this “corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant’s] statements, to establish the corpus delicti.”

	----		----

Ibjadmin at 20:33, 5 December 2010

2010-12-05T20:33:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 5 December 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

			Some states have abandoned the ''corpus delecti'' rule in favor of a more flexible "trustworthiness" standard for admitting confessions absent corroborating evidence.

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:31:16Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 5 December 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:

	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

			The principle of ''corpus delecti'' requires corroborative evidence that proves (1) the occurrence of the specific kind of injury or loss and that (2) the
			injury or loss was caused by someone’s criminal activity. Some jurisidictions may require a third element: some independent proof that the defendant was connected to the criminal act.

	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-12-05T20:28:11Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:28, 5 December 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

	The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)<ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)</ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

	----		----
	See [[Evidence]]		See [[Evidence]]

	==Notes==		==Notes==
	<references/>		<references/>

Ibjadmin at 20:27, 5 December 2010

2010-12-05T20:27:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:27, 5 December 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.		''Corpus delecti'' has often been interpreted as requiring additional evidence beyond a confession before an individual can be convicted of a crime. In other jurisdictions corroborating evidence must be introduced before a confession may be admitted at trial. Additional evidence may also be required before an accomplice's confession may be admitted against the defendant.

	The ~~U.S. Supreme Court refered~~ to the ~~principal of ''corpus delecti'' in Wong Sun v. United States~~ <ref>~~Wong Sun v. United States~~, ~~371 U.S. 471, 497 n.~~14~~, 83 S.Ct~~. ~~407, 9 L~~.Ed.~~2d 441~~ (~~1963~~)</ref>, ~~stating "For~~ the ~~history~~ and ~~development of~~ the ~~corroboration requirement~~, ~~see 7 Wigmore~~, ~~Evidence [3d ed~~. ~~1940], §§ 2070-2071;~~ Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the ~~Defendant's~~ Confession, 103 U. ~~of Pa~~. L. ~~Rev~~. 638~~-649 [~~1955]. ~~For~~ the ~~present scope and application~~ of ~~the rule, see 2 Underhill, Criminal Evidence [5th ed. 1956], §§ 402-403. For~~ a ~~comprehensive collection of cases, see Annot~~.~~, 45 A~~. L. ~~R.2d 1316 [1956].")~~		The idea that an individual should not be convicted of a crime based only on a confession dates back at least to the 17th century Perry’s Case <ref>Perry’s Case, 14 How. St. Tr. 1311 (1660)<ref>, in which the purported murder victim, disappeared one night, leaving a “hacked and bloody” hat behind. The defendant was a suspect, and he soon confessed, implicating not only himself but his brother and mother in the murder as well. All three were tried, found guilty, and executed. Some time after the execution the alleged victim was discovered to still be alive.<ref>Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. PA. L.REV. 638, 638 (1955). “This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed.” Id. at 639.</ref>

	----		----