State v. Krajger

Connecticut Superior Court

State v. Krajger

367 A.2d 1030, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 177, 33 Conn. Supp. 177, 1976 Conn. Super. LEXIS 242

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedJune 3, 1976

DocketFile 22995

StatusPublished

This text of 367 A.2d 1030 (State v. Krajger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Krajger, 367 A.2d 1030, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 177, 33 Conn. Supp. 177, 1976 Conn. Super. LEXIS 242 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Saden, J.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of murder under § 53a-54 of the General Statutes. He has moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that there is insufficient cause to continue the prosecution because the report of the medical examiner and the autopsy performed on the alleged victim failed to set forth a cause of death so as to establish that a homicide took place. It appears *178 that the defendant’s argument is that without a cause of death listed in the autopsy report, the corpus delicti, an essential element of the crime of murder, cannot he proved.

That is not the law in Connecticut. “[I]n a homicide case, the corpus delicti is the fact of the death, whether or not feloniously caused, of the person whom the accused is charged with having killed or murdered. 7 Wigmore, [Evidence (3d Ed.)] §2072, pp. 401, 403.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Tillman, 152 Conn. 15, 20. In this case death has been certified by the office of the medical examiner and by the autopsy report. Furthermore, although the conclusion of the office of the medical examiner was that there was “no apparent cause of death,” the completed autopsy report attached thereto offered the opinion that “the possibility of homicide by suffocation, possibly associated with criminal assault” existed.

“An autopsy is not essential in all eases. When an autopsy is performed its probative effect is not necessarily destroyed by the fact that it is not complete . . . .” 41 C.J.S. 18, Homicide, § 312d (1). Proof of the cause of death is not limited to facts learned from an autopsy and may include circumstantial evidence. Riffle v. King, 302 F. Sup. 992, 996 (N.D. W. Va.). “It is not necessary that the body of the deceased should furnish the evidence of the fact that death was caused by criminal means.” Dunn v. State, 67 N.E. 940, 942 (Ind.). See Hicks v. State, 66 Ga. App. 577, 582. An autopsy on the body of the deceased is not necessary to establish the corpus delicti. 40 Am. Jur. 2d, Homicide, §433. See People v. Wood, 145 Cal. 659, 661; People v. Ong Git, 23 Cal. App. 148, 157. And, finally, the corpus delicti in homicide cases may be established without the aid of any testimony per *179 taining to a coroner’s report. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 387 Pa. 602, 606; Commonwealth v. Haley, 359 Pa. 477, 479.

Thus, even if onr law were different, there conld be enough evidence here at trial to convict without an autopsy report listing the cause of death. Therefore, granting the motion to dismiss would be improper. It is clear that the fact of death will suffice to establish the corpus delicti. Here death has been certified and it is apparent on the face of the record.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss must, therefore, he denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Saden, J.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of murder under § 53a-54 of the General Statutes. He has moved to dismiss the indictment claiming that there is insufficient cause to continue the prosecution because the report of the medical examiner and the autopsy performed on the alleged victim failed to set forth a cause of death so as to establish that a homicide took place. It appears *178 that the defendant’s argument is that without a cause of death listed in the autopsy report, the corpus delicti, an essential element of the crime of murder, cannot he proved.

That is not the law in Connecticut. “[I]n a homicide case, the corpus delicti is the fact of the death, whether or not feloniously caused, of the person whom the accused is charged with having killed or murdered. 7 Wigmore, [Evidence (3d Ed.)] §2072, pp. 401, 403.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Tillman, 152 Conn. 15, 20. In this case death has been certified by the office of the medical examiner and by the autopsy report. Furthermore, although the conclusion of the office of the medical examiner was that there was “no apparent cause of death,” the completed autopsy report attached thereto offered the opinion that “the possibility of homicide by suffocation, possibly associated with criminal assault” existed.

“An autopsy is not essential in all eases. When an autopsy is performed its probative effect is not necessarily destroyed by the fact that it is not complete . . . .” 41 C.J.S. 18, Homicide, § 312d (1). Proof of the cause of death is not limited to facts learned from an autopsy and may include circumstantial evidence. Riffle v. King, 302 F. Sup. 992, 996 (N.D. W. Va.). “It is not necessary that the body of the deceased should furnish the evidence of the fact that death was caused by criminal means.” Dunn v. State, 67 N.E. 940, 942 (Ind.). See Hicks v. State, 66 Ga. App. 577, 582. An autopsy on the body of the deceased is not necessary to establish the corpus delicti. 40 Am. Jur. 2d, Homicide, §433. See People v. Wood, 145 Cal. 659, 661; People v. Ong Git, 23 Cal. App. 148, 157. And, finally, the corpus delicti in homicide cases may be established without the aid of any testimony per *179 taining to a coroner’s report. Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 387 Pa. 602, 606; Commonwealth v. Haley, 359 Pa. 477, 479.

Thus, even if onr law were different, there conld be enough evidence here at trial to convict without an autopsy report listing the cause of death. Therefore, granting the motion to dismiss would be improper. It is clear that the fact of death will suffice to establish the corpus delicti. Here death has been certified and it is apparent on the face of the record.

The defendant’s motion to dismiss must, therefore, he denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 A.2d 1030, 33 Conn. Super. Ct. 177, 33 Conn. Supp. 177, 1976 Conn. Super. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-krajger-connsuperct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack