VICENTE ALICEA REYES, 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.
Vicente Alicea Reyes was convicted of first-degree murder during the commission of a robbery and appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting his confession because the corpus delicti had not been established. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that to establish corpus delicti for a homicide-based charge, the State need only prove the fact of death, criminal agency of another, and identity of the deceased—not the underlying felony.
The corpus delicti of a homicide for purposes of admitting a confession requires only proof of three elements: (1) the fact of death, (2) the criminal agency of another person as the cause thereof, and (3) the identity of the deceased. The State need not independently prove the underlying felony; proof of the homicide alone is sufficient to establish corpus delicti and permit introduction of a confession, which may then contain facts establishing premeditation.
“in attempting to prove a homicide sufficient in nature to warrant the jury returning a verdict of first degree murder, in order to es tablish the corpus delicti it is only necessary for the State to establish three elements, to wit: "first, the fact of death; second, the criminal agency of another person as the cause thereof; and third, the identity of the deceased person"”
Establishes the court's holding on what constitutes corpus delicti in homicide cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReyes was indicted under Florida law for homicide committed during the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate robbery. At trial, a confession disclo…
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 Admissibility Of Confessions cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, who was convicted of first degree murder with a recommendation of mercy, seeks review of his conviction and alleges as grounds for reversal and the granting of a new trial only one error, to wit: the introduction into evidence of a confession disclosing the homicide during the commission of a felony, and contends' that the trial judge erred in permitting same into evidence when the corpus delicti of the crime had not been established.
The appellant was indicted by the Grand Jury and charged,, under § 782.04, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., with the commission of a homicide while “in the perpetration of robbery or in the attempt to perpetrate robbery”. It is the appellant’s contention that to establish the corpus delicti in order to permit a confession into evidence, it is necessary for the State to establish not only the facts relating to homicide, but also the fact of the commission of the felony.
In denying the motion for new trial, the trial judge said:
“This cause came on to be heard on the defendant’s motion for new trial. The principal contention of the defend ■ ant is that the state failed to adequately prove the corpus delicti as a condition precedent to the introduction in evidence of the defendant’s various and sundry confessions. More specifically, the defense argues that, since the state was proceeding under the murder felony statute, independent proof of a robbery or attempted robbery is a component part of the corpus delicti for murder in the first degree under that statute.
“In fairness to the defendant this is to state that if such independent evidence is a part of the corpus delicti it was lacking and a new trial would have to be granted. However, the court’s examination of the applicable authorities does not sustain the defendant’s contention. See Spanish v. State, Fla., 45 So.2d 753, for a definition of corpus delicti in homicide cases in Floride. See also, Jefferson v. State, Fla., 128 So.2d 132, for a definition of the ‘criminal agency of another’ as that phrase is applied in connection with the corpus delicti in homicide cases.
See further, for a case in point: People v. Lytton, 257 N.Y. 310 178 N.E. 290. * * * ”
It is the State’s position that the corpus delicti of the crime charged is the homicide, and upon this being established it was permissible for the trial judge to permit the confession into evidence.
We agree with the State. In attempting to prove a homicide sufficient in nature to warrant the jury returning a verdict of first degree murder, in order to es*665tablish the corpus delicti it is only necessary for the State to establish three elements, to wit: “first, the fact of death; second, the criminal agency of another person as the cause thereof; and third, the identity of the deceased person”, [See: Jefferson v. State, Fla.1961, 128 So.2d 132] and to present facts sufficient to the jury from which they may draw the conclusion of premeditation. It has been held that in an attempt to prove first degree murder based upon premeditation, a confession of the accused may be introduced into evidence after the proof of the homicide, to wit: the corpus delicti, even though the only facts or evidence which tend to establish the premeditation were contained in the confession. See: Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42, 163 So. 291.
No error having been made to appear, the conviction, judgment and sentence here under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 689 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)….1991); Farinas, 569 So. 2d at 430; Meeks v. State, 339 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1976); Davis v. State, 582 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Ruiz v. State, 388 So. 2d 610, 611 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1981); Reyes v. State, 155 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). The record reveals ample evidence of the victim’s identity, her death, and that the victim’s death was caused by the criminal agency of another. The state presented evidence that the victim, a tourist from Germany, arrived at Mi…
-
Morris v. State, 557 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1990)…not refer to trafficking, so this issue was not even involved. The corpus delicti rule was not implicated because trafficking was the underlying felony rather than the murder of which the defendant was convicted. This is explained in Reyes v. State, 155 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). In any event, I agree with the majority that any errors which may have been committed in the guilt phase of the trial were harmless. I also agree that in view of the [*31] evidence, the dictates of Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 9…
-
Trowell v. State, 288 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)…if the prosecutor palpably fails to prove the essential elements of corpus delicti. Reversed and remanded for new trial. WIGGINTON, Acting C. J., and SPEC-TOR, J., concur. . 96 Fla. 69, 117 So. 699 (Fla.1928). . 184 So. 2d 217 (Fla.App.1966). . 155 So. 2d 663 (Fla.App.1963). . 128 So. 2d 132 (Fla.1961). . 201 So. 2d 492 (Fla.App.1967).…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jefferson v. State, 128 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 1961)
- Spanish v. State, 45 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1950)
- Padgett v. State, 121 Fla. 42 (Fla. 1935)