credible, then he would have concluded that the death was caused by smothering. After a discussion of the progression of corpus delicti in Idaho case law, the Idaho Supreme Court stated that the corpus delicti in an unlawful killing case requires proof that someone died and proof that the death was caused by criminal action or means of the defendant. Id. at 915, 88 P.3d at 734. The Court concluded that “Tiffany’s extrajudicial statements that she had killed [the victim] were corroborated by the facts that [the victim] was dead, that he died while under the exclusive care of Tiffany, and that her statements about how she killed him were consistent with the autopsy results.” Id. Additionally, Tiffany argued that the trial court erred in failing to give two proffered jury instructi 77) (<HOLDING>); Adrian v. State, 587 S.W.2d 733, 735
holding that the defendants confession was erroneously admitted into evidence over objection and the court erred in not sustaining the defendants motion for judgment of acquittal where there was no evidence which tended to establish that the fire was incendiary or which corroborated the defendants statements holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient holding trial court properly overruled defendants motion for judgment of acquittal where corroborating evidence existed holding that even if the district court erred in sustaining the objection the error was harmless because the witness answered the question in the negative and the court did not strike his answer holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative