Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/205/86/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/205/86/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907)
Perovich v. United States
No. 405
Submitted January 29, 1907
Decided March 11, 1907
205 U.S. 86
Syllabus
While in this case there was no witness to the homicide and the identification of the body found was not perfect, owing to its condition caused by its having been partially burned, yet, as the circumstantial evidence was clearly enough to warrant the jury in finding that the body was that of the person alleged to have been murdered and that he had been killed by defendant, the trial court would not have been justified in withdrawing the case from the jury, but properly overruled a motion to instruct a verdict of not guilty for lack of proof of the corpus delicti.
In the absence of positive proof, but where there is circumstantial evidence of the corpus delicti, it is not error to submit to the jury the question of defendant's guilt with the instruction that the circumstantial evidence
must be such a to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the corpus delicti has been established.
The testimony of a marshal as to conversations between him and the defendant charged with murder which were voluntary, and not induced by duress, intimidation, or other improper influences, is admissible.
Whether in a criminal trial the court interpreter should be appointed is a matter largely resting in the discretion of the court, and its refusal so to do is not an error where it does not appear that the discretion was in any way abused.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
