People v. Scott
176 Cal. App.2d 458, 1959 Cal. App. LEXIS 1509, 1 Cal. Rptr. 600 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The corpus delicti of a homicide, including the fact of death and the existence of a criminal agency, can be established entirely by circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of the victim's body or a confession from the defendant.
Facts:
- Evelyn Scott was a wealthy, 63-year-old woman in good physical and mental health, who was socially active and had deep ties to her community and friends.
- Her husband, L. Ewing Scott, had no independent income and was financially dependent on her. He persuaded Evelyn to liquidate over $200,000 in securities and hold the proceeds in cash.
- Prior to her disappearance, L. Ewing Scott repeatedly told friends that his wife was in 'terrible' health, which was contrary to medical testimony and friends' observations.
- On May 16, 1955, Evelyn Scott disappeared from her home after last being seen with her husband. He claimed she drove away in her car while he was on an errand and never returned.
- Immediately following her disappearance, Scott began a pattern of deceit, telling friends conflicting stories about her being ill or having a mental breakdown and going east for treatment.
- Scott forged his wife's signature to access her safe deposit box, open new bank accounts, cash travelers checks, and systematically convert her assets for his own use.
- He also began giving away Evelyn's personal belongings, including valuable jewelry, clothing, and a favorite bed-jacket, to other women with whom he became romantically involved.
- Approximately ten months after her disappearance, police discovered Evelyn's dentures and two pairs of eyeglasses, which were essential for her daily life, buried under leaves and ashes on an adjacent property.
Procedural Posture:
- L. Ewing Scott was indicted by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury for one count of murder and thirteen counts of forgery and grand theft.
- The murder count was tried before a jury in a California superior court (trial court).
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Scott of first-degree murder and fixed the penalty at life imprisonment.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Scott accordingly.
- Scott's motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court.
- Scott (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial to the California District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the absence of a body or any direct evidence of death preclude a murder conviction where the corpus delicti is established entirely by circumstantial evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Shinn, P. J.
No. A murder conviction can be sustained without direct evidence of death, such as a body or a confession, provided that the circumstantial evidence is so compelling as to prove the fact of death by a criminal agency and the defendant's guilt beyond any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The court reasoned that to require a body would allow a murderer to escape punishment simply by successfully destroying or concealing the victim's remains. In this case, the evidence of Evelyn Scott's character and habits made it extremely improbable that she would voluntarily abandon her life, especially without essential items like her dentures and eyeglasses. Furthermore, L. Ewing Scott's conduct after her disappearance—including his immediate and systematic theft of her assets, his calculated lies to her friends, his disposal of her personal belongings, and his ultimate flight from the country—was entirely inconsistent with a belief that his wife was alive and consistent only with knowledge that she was dead and could not return. The court found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence formed a complete pattern of murder, leaving no rational explanation for the disappearance other than her murder by the appellant.
Analysis:
This landmark case firmly establishes the principle in California law that the corpus delicti of murder can be proven solely by circumstantial evidence. It prevents the creation of a 'perfect crime' scenario where a defendant could guarantee acquittal by successfully disposing of the victim's body. The decision sets a high evidentiary standard, requiring that the circumstantial evidence be so complete as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. This ruling has been crucial in subsequent 'no-body' homicide prosecutions, providing a clear precedent that the absence of direct physical evidence of death is not an insurmountable barrier to a murder conviction if the indirect evidence is sufficiently powerful.
