Page 47 - 2023 May June TPA Journal_Neat

tangible physical injury or harm as there is in a information about the incident. This evidence
homicide—should by their nature produce highlights the particular vulnerability of this
substantial independent evidence of the corpus discrete subgroup of victims and shows why the
delicti.” However, “different types of crimes—for lack of perceptible harm is particularly dangerous
example, when the harm may be inchoate as it is in when the victim can’t relate that a crime has
certain instances of sexual abuse—are by their occurred.
nature less likely to producing [sic] evidence of the
corpus delicti apart from the defendant’s confession Second, the record shows why the offense of
itself.” Cardwell recognized that in such cases, the indecency with a child, as committed in this case,
corpus delicti rule only demands the best proof of could not be reasonably expected to result in
the corpus delicti which, in the nature of the case, independent evidence of the offense such as
is attainable. perceptible harm. Nurse Ferrell’s testimony
established that, medically speaking, it would not
The record in the present case presents a stark be reasonable to expect to find any kind of injury
illustration of the concerns recognized by this because “that history of what was provided, that of
Court in Miller and addressed by the Kansas touching to the area, rubbing to the area, that’s not
Supreme Court in Dern and Cardwell. The victim any different than really if you’re cleaning your
in this case, a seventeen-month-old infant, was child in this area.” Ferrell testified that, even if
incapable of communication and the underlying there had been some kind of penetrating trauma, “I
criminal conduct was not the kind that would result would not expect there to be injury, because this
in perceptible harm. At the same time, the State part of the body is very similar to the cells on the
provided numerous pieces of evidence that inside of your cheek, and it heals very very fast.”
corroborated contextual facts contained in Ferrell further noted that, in general, the
Appellant’s confessions sufficient to vindicate the presentation of injury in a child’s genital area is
underlying purpose of the rule to protect against incredibly rare and based that conclusion on
false confessions. Such a situation illustrates the publications within her field and her own
need for a discrete exception to the traditional experience of examining over 5,000 children. This
application of the corpus delicti rule in Texas. First, testimony demonstrated the lack of perceptible
the record shows that the child in this case was evidence resulting from the improper sexual
exactly the kind of uniquely vulnerable victim that touching of an infant or young child.
justified the exception we recognized in Miller.
Sergeant Armstrong testified that the child was not Combining the inability of the child victim to
verbal and did not meet the requirements for a Safe communicate the harm with the absence of
Harbor interview due to her age. Armstrong noted perceptible harm, the discrete facts in this record
that the general requirement for an interview starkly illustrate the concerns that we
through Safe Harbor was three years old, but the acknowledged in Miller and the Kansas Supreme
child was just under eighteen months old at the Court dealt with in Dern. In circumstances such as
time of the investigation. Nurse Ferrell confirmed this, we must balance the need to protect society’s
that the child was “pre-verbal” and was not able to most innocent victims from an actual crime only
tell her what happened due to her age. In fact, provable by a defendant’s confession against the
medical paperwork admitted at trial listed the need to protect those who might confess to a crime
child’s primary mode of communication as that never occurred.73 We cannot condone a
“pointing” and “making unidentifiable sounds.” reversal when a defendant voluntarily confesses—
The child’s mother clarified that the child “knew a in great and corroborated detail—to abusing an
few words” but did not speak in sentences. She also infant child simply because the infant child cannot
confirmed that the child was not able to relay any provide independent evidence of the abuse and the

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