In Western law, (Latin for 'body of the crime'; ), is the principle that a crime must be proven to have occurred before a person could be convicted of having committed that crime.
For example, a person cannot be tried for larceny unless it can be proven that property has been stolen. Likewise in order for a person to be tried for arson, it must be proven that a criminal act resulted in the burning of a property. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines "corpus delicti as: "the fact of a crime having been actually committed".
In common law systems, the concept has its outgrowth in several principles. Many jurisdictions hold as a legal rule that a defendant's out-of-court confession alone, is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A corollary to this rule is that an accused cannot be convicted solely upon the testimony of an accomplice. Some jurisdictions also hold that without first showing independent corroboration that a crime has occurred, the prosecution may not introduce evidence of the defendant's statement.
In general, all corpus delicti requires at a minimum:
For example:
In essence corpus delicti of crimes refers to evidence that a violation of law occurred; no literal 'body' is needed.
When a person disappears and cannot be contacted, many police agencies initiate a missing person case. If, during the course of the investigation, detectives believe that they have been murdered, then a "body" of evidentiary items, including physical, demonstrative and testimonial evidence, must be obtained to establish that the missing person has indeed died, and that their death was by homicide, before a suspect can be charged with murder. The clearest evidence in these cases is the physical body of the deceased. However, in the event that a body is not present or has not yet been discovered, it is possible to prove a crime took place if sufficient circumstantial evidence is presented to prove the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, the presence at a missing person's home of spilled human blood, identifiable as that person's, in sufficient quantity to indicate exsanguination, demonstratesâÂÂeven in the absence of a corpseâÂÂthat the possibility that no crime has occurred, and the missing person is merely missing, is not reasonably credible.