People v. Monks

MARKS, J., Concurring.

—Appellant made numerous declarations against interest,, some of them amounting to confessions, which, if taken as true, amply established her guilt. The real question on this appeal is whether or not the

corpus delicti

of each crime of which she was convicted was sufficiently proved to permit the introduction of these confessions in evidence.

The check given to C. S. Dorman was dated February 16, 1932, made payablé to Dorman’s Auto Equip., and was protested on April 20, 1932, the reason given for nonpayment was “Account Closed”. The Felix Morette check ■was dated April 1, 1932, and was protested July 29, 1932, the reason for its nonpayment being given as “No Funds”.

We do not think it necessary in this case to lay down as a general rule without exception that the protest of a check several months after it was passed is sufficient to establish the

corpus delicti,

especially when the protest states as a reason for nonpayment that the account upon which it was drawn had been closed.

The overwhelming evidence of the flight of appellant after passing each of the two checks, under circumstances

[449]

showing a guilty knowledge on her part, should constitute sufficient evidence of the

corpus delicti

to permit the introduction of her confessions in evidence since the enactment of section 1127c of the Penal Code. “ ‘ “Full proof of the body of the crime, the

corpus delicti,

independently of the confession, is not required, says Nelson, C. L., in

People

v.

Badgley,

16 Wend. (N. Y.) 59, by any of the cases; and in many of them slight corroborating facts were held sufficient.” ’ . . . When the ease is submitted for their verdict the jury may consider