Page 45 - 2023 May June TPA Journal_Neat

sufficient circumstantial evidence that would be Fredericson logic, in Kincaid v. State, a case of
insufficient without it,” but it still requires “other incest, the State proved the necessary element of
facts and circumstances” outside of the confession. intercourse with evidence that the niece had given
In terms of sufficient facts and circumstances birth. This provided a circumstance, aside from the
outside of the confession, we have historically defendant’s confession, that the defendant had
required something more compelling than the type “carnally known his niece[.]”
of non-confession facts presented in this case. For
example, in Cokeley v. State, the State charged the Even though these are admittedly older cases, they
defendant with the rape of a “mentally unsound” are largely in line with our fairly recent handling
woman. To prove its case, the State introduced a of the corpus delicti rule. For instance, in Salazar v.
confession from the defendant admitting to having State, we held that the corpus delicti rule simply
intercourse with the victim, but the State could not requires independent evidence of the “essential
call the victim to testify because of her mental nature” of the charged crime, and the corpus delicti
condition. We held that the non-confession of aggravated sexual assault on a child was
evidence was insufficient to corroborate the satisfied by evidence that “someone had sexual
confession or allow the corpus delicti to be proved contact with [the victim’s] private part and that the
with the aid of the confession. We specifically act was performed with criminal intent.” This
looked to evidence that the defendant was seen at “essential nature” would still require some
the victim’s home and walked away from officers independent proof of the actual criminal conduct.
when they approached to arrest him, but we Here, even if we accept that Appellant’s
concluded that these circumstances were confessions could be used in aid of establishing the
insufficient in the absence of some proof of corpus delicti, there was no independent evidence
“intimacy that would show the fact of intercourse.” of the criminal act for them to aid. The State
In doing so, we specifically cited to Kugadt for the presented evidence that Appellant had opportunity
“fairly recognized rule” that “the confession may to commit the crime when he was watching the
be used to aid in proving the corpus delicti, subject, child without his wife. The State also presented
however, to the above statement that it cannot of evidence of Appellant’s guilty conscience by
itself prove the corpus delicti.” We noted that showing that Appellant was emotionally withdrawn
“[u]nless there were facts and circumstances after the weekend and that he was fasting as part of
independent of the confession which showed the some spiritual experience. But the State presented
intercourse of appellant with [the victim], the no independent evidence supportive of the sexual
confession would not be sufficient.” touching itself. It couldn’t. By the State’s own
evidence, the victim of the assault could not relate
In cases in which we did find sufficient facts of the the circumstances of the offense. The assault was
sexual act, apparent injury or a resulting pregnancy described as “touching to the area” and “rubbing to
helped satisfy the rule. For instance, in Fredericson the area,” which did not result in any injury. The
v. State, a case of rape, we held that, in the absence State’s own medical witness noted that there would
of testimony from the mentally ill victim, testimony likely be no injury resulting from penetration
that the victim was two or three months pregnant because “this part of the body is very similar to the
“indicates that some one had had carnal intercourse cells on the inside of your cheek, and it heals very,
with her” and “[t]his established that some one had very fast.” While the State points to evidence of
committed the offense upon her.” While we also opportunity and consciousness of guilt, these
noted the defendant’s confession and cited to the circumstances do not provide independent proof of
Kugadt case, it was only in conjunction with the the sexual contact. That makes this case similar to
independent evidence of carnal knowledge Cokeley, in which there was no “intimacy that
presented by the pregnancy. Following the would show the fact of intercourse,” even though

40 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal