State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Thomas

189 S.E.2d 765, 15 N.C. App. 289, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1904

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 12, 1972

Docket725SC448

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 S.E.2d 765 (State v. Thomas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Thomas, 189 S.E.2d 765, 15 N.C. App. 289, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1904 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

Appellant’s counsel concedes that the trial court’s findings on voir dire were supported by competent evidence, and on this appeal he does not attack the admissibility of the confession. His sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence aliunde the confession to warrant submitting the case to the jury. In this contention we find no merit.

The proof of every crime consists of (1) proof that the crime charged has been committed by someone and (2) proof that the defendant is the perpetrator of the crime. The first element is the corpus delicti; the second is defendant’s guilty participation therein. State v. Macon, 6 N.C. App. 245, 170 S.E. 2d 144. A naked extrajudicial confession of guilt by one accused of crime, uncorroborated by any other evidence, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. There must be evidence apart from the confession tending to establish the fact that a crime of the character charged has been committed, i.e., tending to establish the corpus delicti. State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E. 2d 396; State v. Bass, 253 N.C. 318, 116 S.E. 2d 772; Comment Note, 45 A.L.R. 2d 1316. “This does not mean, however, that the evidence tending to establish the corpus *291 delicti must also identify the defendant as the one who committed the crime.” State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 81 S.E. 2d 773.

In the present case there was ample evidence apart from defendant’s confession tending to establish that the offenses charged in the indictment had been committed by someone. Defendant’s confession was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that he was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. In the trial and judgments appealed from we find

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Graham concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

Appellant’s counsel concedes that the trial court’s findings on voir dire were supported by competent evidence, and on this appeal he does not attack the admissibility of the confession. His sole contention is that there was insufficient evidence aliunde the confession to warrant submitting the case to the jury. In this contention we find no merit.

The proof of every crime consists of (1) proof that the crime charged has been committed by someone and (2) proof that the defendant is the perpetrator of the crime. The first element is the corpus delicti; the second is defendant’s guilty participation therein. State v. Macon, 6 N.C. App. 245, 170 S.E. 2d 144. A naked extrajudicial confession of guilt by one accused of crime, uncorroborated by any other evidence, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. There must be evidence apart from the confession tending to establish the fact that a crime of the character charged has been committed, i.e., tending to establish the corpus delicti. State v. Whittemore, 255 N.C. 583, 122 S.E. 2d 396; State v. Bass, 253 N.C. 318, 116 S.E. 2d 772; Comment Note, 45 A.L.R. 2d 1316. “This does not mean, however, that the evidence tending to establish the corpus *291 delicti must also identify the defendant as the one who committed the crime.” State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 81 S.E. 2d 773.

In the present case there was ample evidence apart from defendant’s confession tending to establish that the offenses charged in the indictment had been committed by someone. Defendant’s confession was sufficient to sustain the jury’s finding that he was the perpetrator of the crimes charged. In the trial and judgments appealed from we find

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E.2d 765, 15 N.C. App. 289, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack