MARTIN DAUSTER GRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Martin Gray appealed his grand larceny conviction, challenging the admissibility of his alleged confession to law enforcement. The court reversed his conviction because the State failed to establish the corpus delicti of the specific crime of grand larceny charged, making the confession improperly admitted.
The court held that the State failed to establish the specific crime of grand larceny charged, and therefore it was inappropriate to permit the alleged confession to be introduced into evidence. The conviction was reversed for a new trial because no evidence in the record, apart from the erroneously admitted confession, sustained the conviction.
“Direct evidence of one offense may not be used as proof of corpus delicti of another crime.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that proof of a general crime is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of a specific charged crime.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGray was convicted of grand larceny in Dade County Criminal Court and sentenced to 6 months to 2 years imprisonment. The State's evidence showed that …
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 Corpus Delicti cases and more on FLexlaw
Upon this appeal, the appellant seeks review of a judgment and sentence of 6 months to 2 years, entered as a result of his conviction of grand larceny in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida.
Several errors were assigned, which there is no necessity of discussing, save as to the question of whether or not the State had sufficiently established the “corpus delicti” of the crime charged against the defendant to permit introduction into evidence of his alleged confession. A detailed examination of the record discloses that at best the State had only established that a crime or offense may have been committed by another, but there was no direct testimony which would have tended to prove the specific crime of grand larceny charged against the defendant, appellant herein. Therefore, it appears that it was inappropriate to permit the alleged confession to the law enforcement officer to be introduced into evidence. See: Sciortino v. State, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 93, wherein, in speaking of a similar situation, Judge Allen had the following to say:
“ * * * Direct evidence of one offense may not be used as proof of corpus delicti of another crime.
“[5-9] We conclude that the following principles of corpus delicti have been established by the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court:
“1. It must be shown that the specific crime charged has been committed. Adams v. State, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So.2d 610.
“2. It is not necessary that the corpus delicti be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to introduce a confession or admission. Lambright v. State, 34 Fla. 564, 16 So. 582; McElveen v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 785.
“3. The confession should not be received in evidence unless there is some prima facie proof of the crime charged. Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238, 112 So. 70; McElveen v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 785.
*486“4. The specific crime charged must be prima facie established and it cannot be inferred that because some crime was committed that the specific crime involved in the prosecution took place. Rowe v. State, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 709.
“5. When the corpus delicti has been prima facie proved by either positive or substantial evidence, the confessions of the defendant are admissible and may be considered and weighed together. Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427, 90 So. 473, 26 A.L.R. 373; Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178, 22 So. 298.”
“This case is reversed for a new trial.”
Therefore, no evidence appearing in the record to sustain the conviction of the appellant, separate and apart from the alleged confession [which we hold was erroneously introduced into evidence],, the judgment and sentence here under review is hereby reversed for a new trial.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Snowden, 345 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…e raised in this case as to which party has the burden of proof when proceeding under the rule on a motion to dismiss. . The phrase “tending to prove” appears to have been considered as being synonymous with “prima facie”. Please see Gray v. State, 152 So. 2d 485 (Fla.3d DCA 1962); Hodges v. State, 176 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1965); and LaSalle v. State, 187 So. 2d 407 (Fla.3d DCA 1963). . Jefferson v. State, 128 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1961). . Jefferson v. State, supra. .State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976). . 128…
-
State v. Hodges, 169 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…sential element of the corpus delicti by “positive or substantial evidence” that the property charged in the information was lost by the owner. See Williams v. State, supra; Harper v. State, Fla.App.1962, 141 So. 2d 606; Gray v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 485. The evidence independent of the admissions shows that employees of the nursing home turned over to the defendant Hodges money which was reported found in Powell’s room and in a wastepaper basket on the first floor nurses’ desk; that Hodges gave th…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Lon Holland v. State, 39 Fla. 178 (Fla. 1897)
- Jenkins Lambright and Albert Stevens v. State, 34 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1894)
- Taylor v. State, 82 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1921)
- Sciortino v. State, 115 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Fla. Fine Fruit Co., 93 Fla. 171 (Fla. 1927)
- Smith v. State, 93 Fla. 238 (Fla. 1927)
- Lovick Adams v. State, 153 Fla. 68 (Fla. 1943)
- Groover v. State, 82 Fla. 427 (Fla. 1921)
- Rowe v. State, 84 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1955)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 153 Fla. 53 (Fla. 1943)