MARGIE ANN USSERY, 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.
Margie Ann Ussery was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, she challenged the admission of her inculpatory statement, arguing the State failed to establish corpus delicti through independent evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient independent circumstantial and medical examiner evidence to establish a prima facie case that the crime was committed.
The court held that the State's contention was without merit. There was sufficient independent circumstantial evidence and opinion evidence from the medical examiner to establish a prima facie case that the crime was committed, and therefore the admission of the defendant's statement was proper.
[1] A confession is admissible if there is a sufficient independent prima facie showing of the corpus delicti.
[2] The prima facie evidence required to establish the corpus delicti need not prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“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.”
Establishes the standard for corpus delicti proof required before admitting a confession
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUssery was tried by jury and found guilty of second-degree murder. She made an inculpatory statement that was admitted as evidence at trial. The State…
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 Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, the defendant below, was informed against, tried by jury, and found guilty of second degree murder. She was so adjudged by the court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant appealed. An inculpatory statement of the defendant, which was admitted in evidence, was adequate to support the verdict.
The appellant contends that the State failed to establish the corpus delicti by evidence independent of her said statement, and therefore that the court erred in admitting her statement in evidence. We hold that contention is without merit. There was independent circumstantial evidence and opinion evidence of a medical examiner based thereon sufficient to make a prima facie case that the crime was committed. No useful purpose would be served here by making a detailed statement of the facts and review of the evidence.
In Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16, 26 (Fla. 1958), the Court said:
It is true that before a confession should be received in evidence there must be some independent proof of the corpus delicti. Parrish v. State, 1925, 90 Fla. 25, 105 So. 130; Keir v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So. 2d 886. There should at least be some additional substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial. Tucker 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. McEIveen 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: 45 A.L.R.2d 1316 (1954).
In Schneble v. State, 201 So. 2d 881, 883 (Fla.1967), the Court said:
* * * While it is true that, before a confession may be received in evidence there must be some independent proof, either direct or circumstantial, of the corpus delicti, it need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it being enough if the evidence tends to show a crime was committed. The question is whether the evidence of corpus delicti is prima facie sufficient to authorize the admission of the confession. * * *
In Hester v. State, 310 So. 2d 455, 457 (Fla.2d DCA 1975), the court said:
* * * The evidence of a corpus delicti at the particular stage of the proceeding with which we are here concerned may be solely circumstantial in character and it is enough if it tends to show a crime was committed. Concededly, that which occurred to the little girl in this case could have occurred innocently and without criminal means. This is often the case with circumstantial evidence; but unless such evidence is solely relied upon to support a conviction, all reasonable hypotheses of innocence need not be excluded. In this light, then, considering the tender age of the child and the nature and extent of the injury described by the doctors, we think a reasonable person, calling upon his common experiences, might well have felt the tendency to conclude criminal causation here. * * *
See, also, Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla.3d DC A 1978). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Ochoa, 576 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…stablished by medical testimony alone for purposes of admitting a confession in a child sexual battery case. See Handwerk v. State, 404 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hester v. State, 310 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). See generally Ussery v. State, 382 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).…
-
Knight v. State, 402 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
-
M.L.K. v. State, 454 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…with which a defendant is charged, must be established by independent evidence before a confession to the crime may be used to prove guilt. State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976); Ruiz v. State, 388 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Ussery v. State, 382 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). The statutory offense of dealing in stolen property is defined in section 812.019(1): Any person who traffics in, or endeavors to traffic in, property that he knows or should know was stolen shall be guilty of a felony of the se…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Frazier v. State, 107 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 1958)
- Parrish v. State, 90 Fla. 25 (Fla. 1925)
- Keir v. State, 152 Fla. 389 (Fla. 1943)
- Elliot Tucker v. State, 64 Fla. 518 (Fla. 1912)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Schneble v. State, 201 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1967)
- McELVEEN v. State, 72 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 1954)
- Graham v. State, 153 Fla. 807 (Fla. 1943)