Bridwell v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Limbird v. State

    340 P.2d 946 (Okla. Crim. App. 1959)

    This may be established either by circumstantial or positive evidence, but is an essential attribute that must be established before the confession becomes admissible to connect the defendant with the crime. For application of this rule see Bonicelli v. State, Okla. Cr. 339 P.2d 1063; Basham v. State, Okla. Cr. 340 P.2d 461; both of which call attention to Love v. State, Okla. Cr. 319 P.2d 317, and the possibility of a different theory of prosecution; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 830; Gorum v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 248, 63 P.2d 765; Young v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 375, 40 P.2d 686; Bridwell v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 353, 5 P.2d 403; Isaacs v. United States, 159 U.S. 487, 16 S.Ct. 51, 40 L.Ed. 229; 20 Am.Jur. 423; Mackey v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 31, 234 P. 782; Phillips v. State, 29 Ga. 105; State of Kansas v. Cardwell, 90 Kan. 606, 135 P. 597, L.R.A. 1916B, 745; Brown v. State, 81 Okla. Cr. 303, 164 P.2d 249, 166 P.2d 1021; all holding that proof of corpus delicti must be made independent of a confession before a conviction based thereon can be sustained. This is the decisive point of this appeal. The cause is accordingly reversed and remanded for a new trial.

  2. Basham v. State

    340 P.2d 461 (Okla. Crim. App. 1959)   Cited 5 times

    "It is the general rule both under statutes and at common law that an extrajudicial confession does not warrant a conviction unless it is corroborated by independent evidence of the corpus delicti." Bonnicelli v. State, supra; Gorum v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 248, 63 P.2d 765; Young v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 375, 40 P.2d 686; Bridwell v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 353, 5 P.2d 403. Corpus delicti is defined as the substantial and fundamental fact or facts necessary to the commission of a crime, and means, when applied to any particular offense, the actual commission by some one of the particular offense charged.

  3. Brown v. State

    81 Okla. Crim. 303 (Okla. Crim. App. 1946)   Cited 7 times

    Citing the following Oklahoma cases: Gorum v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 248, 63 P.2d 765; Lake v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 280, 57 P.2d 1199; Young v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 375, 40 P.2d 686: Bridwell v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 353, 5 P.2d 403; Edwards v. State, 46 Okla. Cr. 77, 288 P. 359; Blakemore v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 355, 265 P. 152; Cherry v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 37, 241 P. 833; Key v. State, 26 Okla. Cr. 55, 221 P. 1048; Mays v. State, 19 Okla. Cr. 102, 197 P. 1064; Henry v. State, 14 Okla. Cr. 189, 169 P. 658; Shires v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 89, 99 P. 1100. And see Choate v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 560, 160 P. 34, L.R.A. 1917A, 1287.

  4. Robinson v. State

    71 Okla. Crim. 75 (Okla. Crim. App. 1940)   Cited 21 times

    "It is the general rule both under statutes and at common law that an extrajudicial confession does not warrant a conviction unless it is corroborated by independent evidence of the corpus delicti." Citing the following Oklahoma cases: Gorum v. State, 60 Okla. Cr. 248, 63 P.2d 765; Lake v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 280, 57 P.2d 199; Young v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 375, 40 P.2d 686; Bridwell v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 353, 5 P.2d 403; Edwards v. State, 46 Okla. Cr. 77, 288 P. 359; Blakemore v. State, 39 Okla. Cr. 355, 265 P. 152; Cherry v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 37, 241 P. 833; Key v. State, 26 Okla. Cr. 55, 221 P. 1048; Mays v. State, 19 Okla. Cr. 102, 197 P. 1064; Henry v. State 14 Okla. Cr. 189, 169 P. 658; Shires v. State, 2 Okla. Cr. 89, 99 P. 1100. And see Choate v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 560, 160 P. 34, L. R. A. 1917A, 1287.

  5. Kosepeah v. State

    16 P.2d 888 (Okla. Crim. App. 1932)   Cited 1 times

    The circumstances upon which the state relies are very meager, and, without entering into an analysis of the facts or discussion of the law applicable, we are satisfied there is not proof of sufficient circumstances consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with that of his innocence to sustain the judgment. De Bose v. State, 1 Okla. Cr. 549, 197 P. 176; Bridwell v. State, 52 Okla. Cr. 353, 5 P.2d 403; 16 C. J. 673. The case is reversed.