Article 118 homicide prosecutions require corroboration of confessions under the corpus delicti rule, preventing convictions based solely on uncorroborated admissions. The corroboration need not independently prove every element but must establish that the harm or injury essential to the offense occurred. For homicide, this means independent evidence that someone died due to criminal agency, not necessarily proving the accused caused the death.
Corroborating evidence can be circumstantial and need only raise reasonable inference of criminal causation. Examples include physical evidence of violence, witness testimony about events surrounding death, or medical evidence inconsistent with natural causes. The corroboration requirement is relatively minimal – slight evidence supporting the confession suffices. Discovery of a body with trauma, missing person circumstances suggesting foul play, or forensic evidence indicating homicide provide adequate corroboration.
Military judges must carefully instruct panels on corroboration requirements, explaining they cannot convict based solely on confession without independent evidence of the crime. The confession itself can provide details leading to corroborating evidence, such as locating the body or weapon. Defense strategies might focus on challenging corroboration sufficiency or arguing evidence shows death but not criminal causation. Appellate review ensures convictions rest on more than uncorroborated self-incrimination, protecting against false confessions while recognizing confessions’ value when properly supported.