The corpus delecti rule requires physical or demonstrative evidence that confirms that a crime actually occurred. It prohibits conviction of a crime solely founded on a confession with no evidence of the crime committed ( Schmalleger et al., 2010 ). In robbery, corpus delecti can be demonstrated by felonious acquisition of another person’s property, removing property from a person’s immediate surrounding or person, and removing of property by applying force or fear. In theft situations, it has to be demonstrated that certain property was stolen and not just went missing or stolen by another person for the suspect to be tried for theft. To catch someone with stolen items is not an element of corpus delecti ( Schmalleger et al., 2010 ).
In theft, corpus delecti is demonstrated by two main elements which are the property was lost by the person who owns it, and that it was lost through felonious means. In Hoke’s case, the court concludes that the presented evidence does not ascertain that her purse was forcefully taken from her but supports an inference that she was robbed because there lacks psychical or demonstrative evidence to show that the purse was indeed taken away from her by applying force. However, the fact that Hook’s purse was taken away from her through a felonious act and removing it away from her surrounding when they ran away with it is a corpus delecti that demonstrates violence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the case of Reeves and Coffman, I agree with the court’s ruling that the girls had followed a important step towards the commission of a targeted offense. They were found in possession of rat poison which was to be put in the teacher’s coffee when she found them leaning on her table where the coffee was placed. The court used the first step test which is intent to commit a specific crime and the second test which is the overt act towards commission of the crime. If the physical proximity test was used in the case, my answer would have been different because there was failure in consummating the crime. Although there were intentions to commit the crime, their intention was stopped by the teacher hence the crime did not occur. Therefore, they would not be guilty of the crime because their intention failed. I think the court modified the legislative enactment. However, the court does not replace that of the ones who drafted the statue. It only reviewed it. Courts have the power to conduct a judicial review and in this case conducted a review of the existing laws in to ensure clarity (Padfield, 2016).
In a different case involving McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc., the corporation argued that the homicide offense committed by the vehicle was not committed by the corporation. The corporation’s argument was based on two grounds. The first ground was that the statue explaining the offense committed was not applicable in situations where the regulation violated involved parts needed on a vehicle and not operation of the whole vehicle. The second ground was that the alleged offense was committed by an individual person and not the corporation. However, the court concluded that the corporation was a person as per Section 102 of the vehicle code explains a person as a natural human being, enterprise, co-partnership, or corporation (Schmalleger et.al, 2010). Therefore, homicide by the vehicle was committed by McIlwain School Bus Lines, Inc. Although in the eyes of the law a corporation is a person, it cannot be imprisoned in offenses committed by its vehicle (s). However, punishment for committing offense include fines. Therefore, an offense committed by a corporation’s vehicle is committed by the corporation because the corporation is a person.
References
Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E., & Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal Law Today. Prentice Hall. Pearson Education Inc.
Padfield, N. (2016). Criminal law . Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
