The Corpus Delicti of an offense constitutes the evidence that is directly related to the case in two ways; the provision of evidence that links the incidence to the offender and the evidence that the victim suffered as a result of the actions perpetrated by the offender. In the two cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these two conditions apply to the case. In the case of a robbery, the Corpus Delicti can be demonstrated if there is evidence that a perpetrator's actions resulted to injury on the victim or the ensuing robbery incident resulted to physical injury on the victim; however, the evidence must be directly relating the incidence to the harm done (Johnson v. United States) . On the other hand, to demonstrate corpus delicti of theft is different. The evidence collected must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was at the scene of the crime and made away with items belonging to the victim. In Hokes' case, the court concludes that there is no conclusive evidence that Hoke's purse was forcibly taken from her, but there was an inference that she might have been robbed. Based on the evidence presented from the medical examination, it is evident that Hoke suffered trauma and injuries to her knees, indicating that she might have been a victim of a robbery. However, the injuries are not related to the theft because there is no evidence that the injuries suffered were as a result of the stolen purse. Additionally, the fact that the accused were in possession of the victim's items does not prove that they either inflicted injury on the victim or took the purse forcibly.
In the case of the two Tennessee students who were arrested and convicted of an attempt to poison their teacher, the court correctly identifies that the students took a substantial step towards committing the crime. The students had purchased the rat poison intended to commit the offense and in fact, carried it to school, this constitutes a substantial step towards committing the crime (State v. Reeves) . Under any test, the results of the case would not change because the intent and the conduct are evidence of a substantial overt act to commit an offense. In using the standard law rules of construction, the courts are not trying to replace the rule as drafted in the statute; instead, there is a circumlocutory repetition of the terms in the statute and the interpretation made in the court, thereby making no clear distinction.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the matter regarding whether a Private Corporation can be held liable for the crime of homicide, the corporation bases its arguments on the fact that the corporation cannot be termed as a person and therefore not liable to any criminal offense. In their argument, the corporation states that the statue that convicts a corporation of homicide via the parts of the vehicle, the front or rear-view mirrors, but not the operation (Com. v. McIlwain Sch. Bus Lines) . In the case, the driver ran over the six-year-old student, and thus, the operation of the vehicle was the driver's liability, not the institution's liability. However, the court identifies that the corporation is indeed liable to criminal offense because of the definition of the term person. In the determination, the statute states that any person who, a phrase that refers to both a person, the human being, or a corporation. In the explanation, the drafters of the phrase were keen to avoid the awkward phrase 'any person who or which' and stuck to 'any person who,' and define the term who as per the requirement of the interpretation of the penal code. The ramifications of terming the corporation as a 'person' for the purpose of law means that a corporation can answer to criminal charges.
References
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 (1948). State v. Reeves , 916 S.W.2d 909 (Tenn. 1996).
Com. v. McIlwain Sch. Bus Lines , 423 A.2d 413, 283 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 283 Pa. Super. 1 (Super. Ct. 1980).
