Driving Issue: The Corpus Delicti Rule in California DUI Cases

In California DUI cases, California DUI lawyers may assert the Corpus Delicti Rule.

The Rule is based on the fundamental concept that a person charged with a California DUI should not be convicted of a California DUI based solely on his or her statements, admission, or confession of committing a California DUI. The Rule is designed to prevent people from being convicted where no crime was actually committed, and false confessions can be the product of things other than overbearing, neglectful, or dishonest police officers. Sometimes a criminal defendant simply has a mental or emotional condition, that prompts him to confess to something he did not do. However, statements by the person accused of a California DUI may possibly be the only evidence to establish "identity." People v. Manson (1977) 71 Cal.App. 3d 1, at 42.

California DUI lawyers regularly remind a California DUI court that it has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that the corpus must be proved independent of the defendant’s statements. People v. Lara (1994) F.30 Cal.App. 4th 658, 674. See CALJIC 2.72 (corpus delicti must be proved independent of admission or confession).

California DUI lawyers point out CALCRIM 359 is the corpus delicti instruction and must be given with CALCRIM 358, the instruction on evaluating a statement made by the defendant including the cautionary instruction for oral statements by the defendant which directs the jury to view oral statements of a defendant with caution unless it was written or recorded. This instruction should be requested by California DUI lawyers in every California DUI case where the California DUI officer did not use video or audio tape during the California DUI intoxication interrogation.

In California DUI cases, the Corpus Delicti Rule traditionally prohibited the California DUI lawyer prosecutor from introducing into evidence the defendant’s extra-judicial statements, admission or confession, absent some foundational proof of the corpus (however minimal). However, following the passage of Cal. Const. Art. I §28(d) (the truth in evidence provision of Proposition 8), the California Supreme Court held in People v. Alverez (2002) 27 C4th 1161 that such evidence may be admitted prior to any proof of the corpus, even though the corpus must still be proven independent of the defendant’s extra-judicial statements.

A California DUI lawyer must remind a California DUI court that it still has a sua sponte duty to instruct the jury that the corpus must be proven independent of the defendant’s statements. People v. Lara (1994) 30 Cal.App. 4th 658, 674. See CALJIC 2.72 and CALCRIM 359.

In California DUI cases, the Corpus Delicti Rule is frequently applicable where the defendant was found in or about a vehicle but was not observed driving by anyone. The defendant’s admission of driving is admissible in the California DUI case, but absent some independent evidence of the corpus, he or she may not be convicted of a California DUI.

In People v. Moreno (1987) 188 CA3d 1179, the court discussed the sufficiency of evidence for a California DUI conviction. Although the defendant admitted driving, and was connected with the vehicle which was close by and registered to him, other persons who could have been the driver were not all eliminated by evidence that no one else but the accused was the driver. California DUI lawyers emphasize that the accused’s admission of driving was inadmissible in evidence under the old rule, but even under the modified rule allowing admissibility, the corpus could not be proved without it.

People v. Komatsu (1989) 212 CA3d Supp. 1, was also a California DUI case where the defendant admitted driving, but the court relied upon the fact that identity is not a part of the corpus. In doing so, the court defined the corpus delicti of a drunk driving offense as evidence that some intoxicated person drove the vehicle. Since the defendant in that case was the only intoxicated person around, the only issue was "identity."

California DUI lawyers point out that Moreno is distinguishable in that there was no mention in that California DUI opinion that every single person standing around was intoxicated. The corpus in Moreno could not be established because it could not be first established that some intoxicated person drove the vehicle. One of the presumably sober people standing around could have been the driver.

California DUI lawyers correctly maintain that Komatsu and Moreno are consistent. Once all possible sober persons are eliminated as possible drivers, use of the defendant’s admission of driving, for the purpose of identifying him as the person who was the driver, does not violate the corpus rule.

People v. Gapelu (1989) 216 CA3d 1006 demonstrates this California DUI lawyer point. In that California DUI case, others were eliminated as possible drivers by the fact that the defendant was seen standing near the car registered to him for quite some time; there was a foaming beer can inside; and his injuries were consistent with those that the driver would have suffered, which was apparent from a look at the damage inside the car. Like Komatsu, the California DUI court found the corpus amply showed without the defendant’s admission that he had been the driver.

In People v. Scott (1999) 76 CA4th 411, the California DUI court opinion mentioned: “...at least for now [fn2], the rule is that the corpus delicti must be established independently of any admissions by the defendant [citation].” (Footnote 2 says that the California Supreme Court left open whether or not Proposition 8 (Cal. Const., Art. I, §28(d)) does away with the Corpus Delicti Rule, which we now know it does not per Alvarez, supra.) Citing Moreno, that California DUI court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to make out the corpus delicti and allow admission of driving in evidence at a preliminary examination.

The Corpus Delicti Rule still logically prohibits conviction of a California DUI offense absent some proof of the corpus independent of any extra-judicial statements, admissions, or confessions by the California DUI defendant.