The opinion
Concueeing Opinion
Emmeet, J.
I agree that there was sufficient proof of the corpus delicti to admit into evidence appellant’s confession, but I cannot concur in the majority opinion defining proof of the corpus delicti before the admission of a confession.
In Parker v. State (1949), 228 Ind. 1, 6 , 88 N. E. 2d 556 , 89 N. E. 2d 442 , we reversed the judgment because of failure to prove by some evidence of probative value that the crime charged was committed by someone before appellant’s confession was introduced in evidence. We there held:
“Proof of the ‘corpus delicti’ means proof that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by someone. Hawkins v. State (1941), 219, Ind. 116, 129, 37 N. E. 2d 79 ; Hunt v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 171, 178 , 23 N. E. 2d 681 ; 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law (12th Ed.), §347, p. 450; 14 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, §6, p. 58, 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, §916, p. 181.”
This definition reaffirmed the law of Indiana on corpus delicti, and is as clear and concise as language could make it. There is no occasion to borrow from the confusing language of other authorities, and if the policy of stare decisis is to mean anything, the rule *206 should not be changed. There is good reason for the Indiana rule, and the reason still exists. The well considered precedents of this court should remain the law of Indiana.
We reaffirmed the rule of the Parker case, supra, in Dennis v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 210, 216 , 102 N. E. 2d 650 ; Simmons v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 489, 492 , 129 N. E. 2d 121 ; and Taylor v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 415, 421 , 140 N. E. 2d 104 . See also 8 Ind. Law Ene. p. 339, §266. I cannot agree that preliminary proof of the corpus delicti sufficient to admit a confession can be made by independent evidence from which an inference may be drawn that a crime of the nature and character charged has been committed by someone. To permit this would be to open the door to proof of a crime not charged as a basis for admitting a confession of the crime charged.