MARY A. GRAHAM
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Mary A. Graham was convicted of assault with intent to procure a miscarriage by performing an abortion on Elsie Watts. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her conviction, holding that the corpus delicti was sufficiently proven through the victim's testimony and corroborating witnesses before her confession was admitted into evidence.
The appellant's conviction was proper. The corpus delicti was sufficiently proven prima facie through the victim's testimony and corroborating State witnesses before the confession was admitted. The corpus delicti need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before a voluntary confession is admitted into evidence; prima facie proof is sufficient.
“The corpus delicti need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, before confessions of the accused may be received. Although requisite to a conviction, that degree of proof is not a prerequisite to the admission of a confession.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for admission of confessions—prima facie proof of corpus delicti is sufficient, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham agreed to perform an abortion on the pregnant Elsie Watts for a fee. Watts visited Graham, paid part of the agreed price, disrobed, and lay on …
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
The appellant was charged with making an assault upon one Elsie Watts, with intent to procure a miscarriage of the said Elsie Watts, by inserting a surgical instrument by way of the vagina into her womb. The offense charged is denounced as a crime, by Section 797.01 Florida Statutes, 1941. The appellant waived trial by jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found the defendant guilty of the offense charged. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction.
The appellant contends that she was found guilty upon a confession, without sufficient proof, otherwise, of the corpus delicti. We cannot agree with this contention. We find sufficient preliminary proof of the corpus delicti, in the record, to authorize the receipt in evidence of the confession. According to the testimony of the prosecuting witness, she, being then pregnant, visited the appellant to arrange for the production of an abortion. Appellant agreed to perform the operation, for a financial reward agreed upon between the parties. A few days later, at a time arranged by the parties, Elsie Watts returned for the operation. After paying over a part of the agreed price, the patient disrobed and got upon the operating table. She remained there for a period of three hours, while appellant worked with surgical instruments upon the person of the patient, attempting to produce the abortion.
Nothing will be gained by a detailed narrative of what transpired. . In our opinion, the testimony of the prosecuting witness was sufficient in itself to prove the charge, at least prima facie. Other State witnesses were produced whose testimony corroborated the story of the prosecuting witness in essential details. Voluntary confessions made to investigating officers were received in evidence. There was no error in their admission.
*809The corpus delicti need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, before confessions of the accused may be received. Although requisite to a conviction, that degree of proof is not a prerequisite to the admission of a confession. If, when the confession is offered there is already before the jury evidence tending to show that the crime to which the confession relates has been committed, the confession should be admitted, provided it is freely and voluntarily made and otherwise admissible; the court deciding in the first instance whether the evidence of the corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to authorize the admission of the confession in evidence. Nickels v. State, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479.
The testimony of appellant did not agree with the testimony given by State witnesses, although, in our opinion, it strengthened it in some of the essential details.
A conflict of evidence was presented for consideration by the trial judge. From the evidence, he determined that the appellant was- guilty of the crime charged. There was ample evidence to sustain this finding, beyond a reasonable doubt.
All objections made by appellant to the entry of judgment have been duly considered We find no reversible error in the proceedings.
The judgment, therefore, is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
BUFORD, C. J., and BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)…v. State, 1912, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941. The corpus delicti need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is enough if the evidence tends to show that the crime was committed. McElveen v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So. 2d 785; Graham v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 807, 16 So. 2d 59. The only question is whether the evidence of the corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to authorize the admission of the confession. Nickels v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, supra; Graham v. State, supra. See Annotation: 4…
-
Stone v. State, 378 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1979)…. State, 1912, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941. The corpus delicti need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is enough if the evidence tends to show that the crime was committed. McElveen v. State, Fla. 1954, 72 So. 2d 785; Graham v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 807, 16 So. 2d 59. The only question is whether the evidence of the corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to authorize the admission of the confession. Nickels v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 659, 106 So. 479, supra; Graham v. State, supra. See Annotation: 4…
-
State v. Barquet, 262 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1972)…(1963), appeal dismissed, 376 U.S. 648, 84 S.Ct. 983, 11 L.Ed.2d 980 (1967) ; Weightnovel v. State, 46 Fla. 1, 35 So. 856 (1904) ; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 So. 144 (1899) ; Urga v. State, 155 Fla. 86, 20 So. 2d 685 (1945) ; Graham v. State, 153 Fla. 807, 16 So. 2d 59 (1944) ; Sinnefia v. State, 100 So. 2d 837 (Fla.App.3rd 1958) ; Nations v. State, 145 So. 2d 259 (Fla.App.2d 1962) ; Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla.App.2d 1963) ; Pessolano v. State, 166 So. 2d 706 (Fla.App.3rd 1964). . 1 Am.Jur.2…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)