*1 error, Appel proposition In his final effect of alleges that the cumulative
lant of errors assignment aforementioned of this or modification
warrants reversal warranting found no error
cause. We
reversal, accumulation of therefore no See,
errors. Stouffer appealed judgment and sentence is, therefore, AFFIRMED.
from P.J., BRETT,
LANE, PARKS and JJ.,
JOHNSON, concur. THORNBURGH, Appellant, Paul
Robert Oklahoma, Appellee.
The STATE of
No. F-88-897. Appeals of Oklahoma.
Court Criminal
May 1991.
Rehearing Denied
187 raises four propositions only of error. discuss We the second requires which we concluded reversal. Therein, appellant correctly asserts that prosecution prove the failed to corpus the Corpus delicti of the crime. delicti means particular the actual commission of a crime by State, someone. v. 740 P.2d 153, (Okl.Cr.1987). Specifically, 160 in a case, prosecution the prove homicide must two fundamental facts: First, death; second, the the criminal Henderson, Appellate M. Paula Asst. agency as the of another cause of death. Defender, appel- for City, Oklahoma Public State, 1126, (Okl.Cr. Jones v. 1130 lant. 1974). person death of the the The Okl., Henry, Atty. H. of Robert Gen. killing by the accused must each be estab Gen., Slayton, Atty. Diane L. Asst. Okla- independent proven lished as facts and be City, appellee. for homa O.S.1981, yond a doubt. 21 reasonable 693.
§
OPINION
prosecution
The
is not
corpus delicti beyond
the
a reason
PARKS, Judge:
able doubt
of a defendant’s
Thornburgh,
Appellant, Robert Paul
was
State,
86,
v.
87
confession. Cook
Degree
charged
First
Murder Okla-
(Okl.Cr.1985).
prose
It is sufficient
if
Court,
County
Case No.
homa
District
cution offers substantial evidence of the
by jury
The case
tried
CRF-86-3863.
so,
Having
prose
done
delicti.
Freeman,
before
Honorable Leamon
may
cution
introduce a defendant’s confes
Judge.
Judge
sustained
District
Freeman
if,
totality, the
proves
sion and
evidence
appellant’s
charge
demurrer to the
of Mur-
guilt beyond
a
defendant’s
reasonable
Degree
proceeded
in the First
der
doubt,
prosecution’s
case is sufficient.
charge Manslaughter
of
in the First
States,
84, 93,
Opper
348
75
v. United
U.S.
(21
711).
Degree
O.S.Supp.1984,
The
164,
158,
(1954);
S.Ct.
(60) imprisonment. years Judgment 1982); Smith accordingly. Sentence was entered We re- (Okl.Cr.1976). Only after substantial evi verse. tending delicti is dence prosecution de introduced offer a Eight-year-old report- Robert Seeton was into fendant’s confession evidence. Jones missing by July ed his mother on P.2d 29, 1985, boy’s was found On case, a vacant find underneath house. The remains In the instant we torso, prosecution provide of a skull ev upper consisted which failed to substantial skin, de covered and idence could establish that the were mummified bones which were scattered under ceased as a result of the criminal died yard. and in the of agency house back had before admission another Generally, partially been disturbed and eaten ani- confession. evidence identity provided mals. was deter- of criminal homicide year opin dental one who renders an by pathologist mined records. About cases Abilene, later, being arrested in Tex- ion as cause of death. No such after to the charges, appellant unrelated confess- offered in the case at bar. as on evidence was case, killing in the instant pathologist ed to Robert Seeton. facts The forensic Other no they discussed testified that “there was Balding, will be relevant. Dr. become origin. injury by an act criminal any caused kind of traumatic will, Knowledge condition of stated, location and ante mor- if could be appel- proving is not evidence tem, victim was alive.” or while or lant caused the death that the death as “unde- Balding the cause death listed *3 criminal the result of conduct. “un- manner of death termined” and the known.” Next, alleges the State that the fact that where the appellant wherein the house where the tion, Each testified Ann that the ton circumstantially establish that Robert See- he pellant criminal person he called “friend.” cient circumstantial evidence left their home after aforestated edge Seeton did not then returned to their home. George friend’s male that a boys and “friend” were at a clubhouse near ceased were tending presented that his peared. with the deceased criminal act. er of the that The State George lished unmindful that The State also claims that park. disappeared, died as brother Carrier lived cut before its the established that by circumstantial evidence. Moran In was with Seeton Seeton saw to show the location and condition house.” This was the last time agency. George Seeton, deceased, up deceased Both George called “friend.” reaching our decision we evidence did establish that a contends that disappeared in the would be found The State result of circumstantially corpus delicti discovery by police was later found and stated testified George identify we find that put that on the he Sofronia testified died as a result conversation company stating, his pointed into deceased appellant appellant neighborhood the a points day brother. appellant he and the de bags. criminal act. Young younger Although the “I’m the deceased the deceased at was found. of Thereafter, on the to evidence had knowl- established it did not the house testimony boy disap that loca- was seen had This evi- establish be estab an adult going is suffi- the George and Jo are not broth near of a two day day ap to trustworthiness which, ment to introduce substantial ina, sion, ed: used in evidence which would tend favorable to cumulatively, and taken that the above licti. level of substantial that the death was unusual. found death was unusual the cause of death was ence to conclude that because “It is a what was caused of death was manner and condition that dence of cal conclusive evidence whether the tial grave constitutes substantial circumstan- the disagree. bold, A: This Q: Finally, examiner’s determination that the just hand. ert Seeton? hand. body criminal evidence happened youWill I and in our in decidedly justifies Court has punched P.2d at apparently [*] following statements were wanted to Opper corpus delicti. was part, the State asserts that the Such evidence establishes I didn’t to by a agency of “unusual” is substantial evi- produce found tell me [*] evidence, standing alone or to consists of the ... view, him in the the criminal act. adopted even evidence that the State United I to put on partially of another. [*] body had [confession].” how does not rise to the to require impermissible delicti. We something know in my to you States, supra, the conclusion [*] disagree. the However, it establish the stupid in a knife in I had it. the provides killed Rob- light Again, following: body reasoning We [*] dug Govern type confes report chest infer- death medi- Med most type only find my my out de- we no [*] is I not substantially my pocket pulled dence does that the I Then reached criminal con- I hit him dead center something. deceased died as result of out my might. At this knowledge does not create a in the chest with all duct. Such time he fell back with blank look.... rational inference that the death was Furthermore, (1952). prosecution produced also, P.2d See Goforth witnesses, consisting of officers Bemo (Okl.Cr.1982) appellant Berry, who testified that confess- Drake v. hitting 1968). However, the deceased in the chest with bar,
ed in the case at However, punch. during a leather conditions surrounding the site where the Balding, following examination of body was found changed by were so inde transpired: pendent intervening facts that all indica Now,
Q: death, tions of an Okay. puncture if the would unnatural or violent they existed, the extent have been that area front of the ever were [the torso], Therefore, decomposition destroyed. the erosion and spec we are left to destroyed would have what could ulate as to whether the criminal *4 wound, puncture have identified as a another caused Robert Seeton’s death. would it not? alone, A standing confession and not cor- Well, no, chest, Again, A: sir. on the by roborated independent proof of the cor- body, on the front of the the chest and delicti, pus will not sustain a conviction. relatively Again, skin was intact. Ward, ex rel. State Peterson v. 707 P.2d decomposition. there was a little But (Okl.Cr.1985); State, 1219 v. Davis puncture if there had been wound (Okl.Cr.1975). 535 Because chest, which, completely through the the State’s evidence was insufficient to course, would—it would have been properly corpus establish the delicti inde- death, to cause I think I pendent appellant’s confession, we must would have seen it. It would have REVERSE and REMAND this cause to the
been there.
trial court with instructions to DISMISS.
prosecution
indepen-
also failed to
dently
LANE, P.J.,
BRETT, J.,
establish that the deceased’s arms
and
concur.
legs
had been cut off.
con-
LUMPKIN, V.P.J.,
JOHNSON, J„
cutting
legs
fessed to
off the arms and
so
dissent.
body
placed
that the
could
in
grave.
be
LUMPKIN,
Presiding Judge,
Vice
However,
Balding testified,
Dr.
“We looked
dissents:
extensively
of,
and saw no evidence
if
disarticulation_”
will, mechanical
respectfully
I must
dissent to the Court’s
Balding acknowledged that
if cut marks
determination that
insufficient evidence
present
had been
on the ends of the bones
presented
to sustain the verdict of the
by
these marks would have been masked
jury.
activity.
the animal
previously
We have
sustained a convic
Lastly, appellant
putting
confessed to
degree
tion for murder in the first
where
body
“speed
lime on the
to
up decomposi-
body
of the victim was never found.
analysis
tion.” Chemical
of the soil did not
State,
(Okl.
See
As this show, first, Sally Rawlings died wound, second, of a
from the effects unlawfully wound was inflicted
by the defendant. sufficiency of the evidence
When the
challenged
appeal,
presented at trial is
Oklahoma, Appellant,
STATE of
here,
proper
as it is
test is whether
reviewing
light
after
the evidence in the
prosecution, any
most favorable to
TINKLER,
Joseph
Tippie
Richard
could
rational trier
facts
have found
McCarty, Appellees.
Annette
elements of the crime
essential
No. S-90-1055.
beyond
charged
a reasonable doubt.
Spuehler
Appeals
the death of
based on circumstantial evidence. applied evidentiary properly
Court test Spuehler
set forth in and determined elements of the offense could
essential any been found rational trier of
facts. The Court’s treatment of the
delicti in this issue case effect treats
production in a detri- victim’s manner, positive than
mental rather production
result it should have. the first enunciat- establishes fact Edmondson,
ined the death. In proved never death was evidence, only circumstantially.
direct proved by
this case the death was
evidence and that evidence is
sufficient delicti when
coupled corroborated statements parties prior
made third discovery and the confes- given
sions enforcement law officers. Appel-
The location of the where the