REGINALD FINNEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A criminal conviction cannot be based solely on an extrajudicial confession without independent prima facie evidence of the corpus delicti.
Appellant confessed to selling a stolen videocassette recorder, but there was no independent evidence of how he disposed of the item. The jury had suf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extrajudicial Confession cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for dealing in stolen property. Appellant asserts that the state failed to offer prima facie evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime before it introduced his confession into evidence, with the result that his conviction for dealing in stolen property is based solely on his confession. We agree and reverse appellant’s conviction on this count.
A criminal conviction cannot be based solely upon an extrajudicial confession by the defendant unless there is prima facie evidence of the corpus delicti of the crime independent of the statement. McQueen v. State, 304 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The corpus delicti of a crime essentially consists of showings both of the fact that the crime charged has been committed and that some person is criminally responsible for it. Id. In the instant case, although the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict appellant of petit theft of the victim’s videocassette recorder, there is no evidence demonstrating how appellant disposed of the item after he unlawfully took it other than appellant’s confession that he sold the item to an unknown individual at some undisclosed location for $100. Because there was no evidence establishing the corpus delicti of the crime of dealing in stolen property other than appellant’s confession, appellant’s conviction on that count must be reversed.
The conviction for the charge of dealing in stolen property is reversed and the cause remanded. Should the court resentence appellant upon remand, it may consider appellant’s potential status as a habitual misdemeanant under section 775.084(l)(b), Florida Statutes.
ERVIN and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 569 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…a crime, cannot be the sole basis for that defendant’s conviction for that crime; there must be prima facie evidence of the crime charged independent of the defendant’s admission. Jordan v. State, 560 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Finney v. State, 550 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Although we can find no case in Florida which sets forth the corpus delicti for the crime of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, it would appear that the state [*874] would have to show prima facie evidence that Johns…
-
Jordan v. State, 560 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…e the defendant’s admission in evidence “when the corpus delicti, that is, that the crime charged had been committed, could be established only by the confession or admission.” Hodges v. State, 176 So. 2d 91, 93 (Fla.1965). See also Finney v. State, 550 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Unquestionably, the state could not establish the corpus delicti in this case without total reliance on Jordan’s equivocal statements that he had some crack cocaine in the matchbox which he asked Loretta Regar to purchase. The…
Authorities Cited
- McQUEEN v. State, 304 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)