corpus delicti rule in California

2026CALCRIM No. 359 is based on the corpus delicti rule. “ ‘In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself—i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.’ ” (People v. Ramirez Ruiz (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 809 , 829.) “The corpus delicti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own statements.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 721 .) “The independent proof [of the corpus delicti] may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Peo

2026(People v. Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 721 [“The corpus delicti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own 15 statements”].) And the court has a mandatory duty to instruct on the corpus delicti rule “[w]henever an accused’s extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution’s evidence.” (People v. Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1170 .) We therefore conclude there was no error in the language of the CALCRIM No. 359 instruction given here.

2026(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2025(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2026(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2025(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2021Although this statement provides clear corroboration that the murder occurred during an attempted robbery, multiple courts have held that “the corpus delicti [cannot] be established by the extrajudicial statements of a codefendant.” (Munoz v. Superior Court (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 774 , 779; see Jones v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 390, 397 .) Because we conclude there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the corpus delicti rule without reliance on Flint’s statement, we need not address whether an accomplice or codefendant’s extrajudicial statements may satisfy the corpus delicti rule. 18

2020(Jones v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 390, 397 (Jones); see People v. Powers-Monachello (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 400, 407,410 , (Powers).) The corpus delicti rule “is intended to ensure that one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.” (Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1169 ; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 450 .) In addition to protecting against the possibility that a defendant will be convicted of a crime not actually committed, it reduces the chance of a false confession to an actual crime.

2023In People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 , the court clarified that the People were not required to establish the corpus delicti of an underlying felony used to convict an accused of murder on a felony-murder theory (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672 , 680–681, disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 ), but that the “general law” proviso incorporated the corpus delicti requirement for felonies supporting special circumstance allegations, which if found true, would subject the defendant to a penalty phase and possibly to the punishment of deat

2023In People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 , the court clarified that the People were not required to establish the corpus delicti of an underlying felony used to convict an accused of murder on a felony-murder theory (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672 , 680–681, disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 ), but that the “general law” proviso incorporated the corpus delicti requirement for felonies supporting special circumstance allegations, which if found true, would subject the defendant to a penalty phase and possibly to the punishment of deat

2025(People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 ; Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1168–1169; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 394 , abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1189–1190.) “However, the corpus delicti rule has no application when the defendant’s extrajudicial statements constitute the crime.” (People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 420 .) Because Jackson’s statements on the bus were the essential basis of the crimes with which he was charged they were not within the ambit of the corpus delicti rule.

2023First, the rule does not apply to words that constitute a part of the crime itself (see People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312 , 393−394, overruled on other grounds in People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176 , 1190−1191; Carpenter at p. 394 [“the corpus delicti rule is designed to provide independent evidence that the crime occurred, not to help determine whether the statement was made”]), such as words to assist, induce, persuade, or encourage another person to engage in prostitution.

2026(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2025(People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 ; Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1168–1169; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 394 , abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1189–1190.) “However, the corpus delicti rule has no application when the defendant’s extrajudicial statements constitute the crime.” (People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 420 .) Because Jackson’s statements on the bus were the essential basis of the crimes with which he was charged they were not within the ambit of the corpus delicti rule.

2026CALCRIM No. 359 is based on the corpus delicti rule. “ ‘In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself—i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.’ ” (People v. Ramirez Ruiz (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 809 , 829.) “The corpus delicti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own statements.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 721 .) “The independent proof [of the corpus delicti] may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Peo

2026(People v. Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 721 [“The corpus delicti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own 15 statements”].) And the court has a mandatory duty to instruct on the corpus delicti rule “[w]henever an accused’s extrajudicial statements form part of the prosecution’s evidence.” (People v. Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1170 .) We therefore conclude there was no error in the language of the CALCRIM No. 359 instruction given here.

2013A slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient. [Citations.]’ [Citation.] To apply the rule, it is not necessary for the 13 independent evidence to establish that the defendant was the perpetrator. [Citations.]” (People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 404 .) “We reemphasize that the quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing. [Citations.] This minimal standard is better understood when we consider that the purpo

2003"By failing to object, [appellant] cannot now complain the evidence was improperly admitted. [Citation.] It may well be that `proof of the corpus delicti was available and at hand during the trial, but that in the absence of [a] specific objection calling for such proof it was omitted.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, 404 , 276 Cal.Rptr. 731 , 802 P.2d 221 .) "A defendant cannot on review complain of insufficiency of evidence based on improper admission of corpus delicti evidence where defendant omitted to interpose a specific objection on the ground of the corpus delicti

2022(See People v. Cullen (1951) 37 Cal.2d 614 , 624–625 [setting forth the elements of the corpus delicti rule]; People v. Rosales (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1261 [“CALCRIM No. 359 correctly states the law.”].) With CALCRIM No. 336, the court made it clear that the jurors must view Ferretiz’s testimony “with caution and close scrutiny” because he was an in-custody informant.

2015It is not necessary that it connect the defendant with the commission of the crime . . . . [Citation.]” (People v. 5 Cullen (1951) 37 Cal.2d 614, 624 .) Rather, the corpus delicti rule only requires evidence that “‘someone committed a crime.’ [Citation.] That person need not be the accused; it could be anyone.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1428 (original italics).) Defendant argues there was no evidence the shooter committed attempted murder with premeditation and deliberation, as alleged in the information.

2020(Jones v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 390, 397 (Jones); see People v. Powers-Monachello (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 400, 407,410 , (Powers).) The corpus delicti rule “is intended to ensure that one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.” (Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1169 ; People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 450 .) In addition to protecting against the possibility that a defendant will be convicted of a crime not actually committed, it reduces the chance of a false confession to an actual crime.

2005“Distilled to its essence, the corpus delicti rule requires that the prosecution establish the corpus delicti of a crime by evidence independent of the defendant’s extrajudicial inculpatory statements before he or she may be held to answer a criminal complaint following a preliminary examination, be convicted of an offense, or hear the statements repeated as evidence in court. [Citation.] The corpus delicti in turn consists of at least slight evidence that somebody committed a crime.” (People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 450 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 408 , 966 P.2d 442 ].) The rule in California is

2026CALCRIM No. 359 is based on the corpus delicti rule. “ ‘In every criminal trial, the prosecution must prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime itself—i.e., the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.’ ” (People v. Ramirez Ruiz (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 809 , 829.) “The corpus delicti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s own statements.” (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 721 .) “The independent proof [of the corpus delicti] may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Peo

2023(Ibid; see People v. Valencia (2008) 43 Cal.4th 268, 297 [Alvarez made clear that the corpus delicti rule no longer prevents admission of the confession into evidence]; Davis, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 634 [Proposition 8 generally made “all relevant evidence 53. admissible in criminal cases.”].) Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim that the corpus delicti rule should be expanded to defendant’s admission of an uncharged offense offered under Evidence Code section 1108.

2025(People v. Foster (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1301, 1345 .) The cautionary instruction of CALCRIM No. 358 applies to “any extrajudicial oral statement by the defendant that is used by the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt—it does not matter whether the statement was made before, during, or after the crime, whether it can be described as a confession or admission, or whether it is a verbal act that constitutes part of the crime or the criminal act itself.” (People v. Diaz (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1176, 1187 .) The cautionary instruction “ ‘is designed to aid the jury in determining whether an admission

2022(See Rivas, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at p. 1428 .) The dispute here concerns the third paragraph of the instruction and the principle that “the corpus delicti rule does not require independent proof that the defendant is the perpetrator of the crime.” ( Ledesma, supra, at p. 721 .) The trial court in Rivas instructed the jury with an earlier version of CALCRIM No. 359 that stated in the third paragraph, “ ‘The identity of the person who committed the crime [and the degree of the crime] may be proved by the defendant’s statement[s] alone.’ ” (Rivas, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at 1428, fn. 5 .) The Ri

2023(Ibid.) Relying on Jennings, supra, 53 Cal.3d 334 and People v. Robbins (1988) 45 Cal.3d 867 , which we discuss immediately below, the court held the corpus delicti requirement is “not so strict.” (Jones, at p. 302.) In Jennings, supra, 53 Cal.3d 334 , the defendant, who was convicted of multiple murders, challenged an accompanying rape conviction as unsupported by sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti.

2023The evidence thus satisfies the second prong of the corpus delicti rule, i.e., the involvement of a criminal agency.” (Id. at pp. 367-368, italics omitted.) Similarly, in People v. Robbins, supra, 45 Cal.3d 867 , another murder case, our Supreme Court held the following to be sufficient independent evidence of the corpus delicti of lewd or lascivious conduct with a child: “Defendant was seen by one witness riding a motorcycle in the area of (and on the date of) the victim’s disappearance, and the victim was last seen by another witness riding a motorcycle with a man matching defendant’s descri

2021The Attorney General relies on People v. Sanchez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 167 (Sanchez), to support its argument Evidence Code section 1108 may be used to 8 establish the corpus delicti rule.

2020(People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1127-1128 .) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of criminal conduct, even if a noncriminal explanation is also plausible. [Citations.] There is no requirement of independent evidence ‘of every physical act constituting an element of an offense,’ so long as there is some slight or prima facie showing of injury, loss, or harm by a criminal agency.” (Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1171 ; see also People v. Sanchez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 167 [circumstanti

2008In California, it has traditionally been held, the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant. [Citations.]" ( Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 .) This includes "preoffense statements of later intent as well as ... postoffense admissions and confessions...." ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312 , 394, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 , relying on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) The purpose of the corpu

2008In California, it has traditionally been held, the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant. [Citations.]" ( Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1168-1169, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 .) This includes "preoffense statements of later intent as well as ... postoffense admissions and confessions...." ( People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312 , 394, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 935 P.2d 708 , relying on People v. Beagle (1972) 6 Cal.3d 441, 455 , 99 Cal.Rptr. 313 , 492 P.2d 1 .) The purpose of the corpu

2023(People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 (Alvarez).) “The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to satisfy the policy of the law that ‘one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.’ ” (People v. Miranda (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 98, 107 ; see also Alvarez, supra, at p. 1169 .) Generally, the rule applies to crimes for which a defendant is on trial, and courts have not extended the rule to other crimes with which a defendant is not charged. ( Denis, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568–570 [corpus delicti rule did not apply to “uncharged

2023The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to satisfy the policy of the law that ‘one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.’ ” (People v. Miranda (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 98, 107 .) 22 Castro asks this court to extend the rule to his journal entries, which he characterizes as uncharged crimes.

2024(See People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347, 376 [rejecting argument that CALJIC No. 2.15, which contains similar language and pertains to possession of stolen property, lowered prosecution’s burden of proof].) As stated ante, the corpus delicti rule has “no bearing on the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the offense.” (People v. Diaz, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 529 .) II.

2024The independent evidence may be circumstantial, and need only be a “a slight or prima facie showing” permitting an inference of injury, loss, or harm from a criminal agency, after which the defendant’s statements may be considered to strengthen the case on all issues.’ ” (People v. Ledesma 5Oakley does not challenge the trial court’s omission of the third paragraph of the instruction concerning proof of identity. 7 (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 721 .) “The corpus delicti rule is a rule of law that governs the admissibility of evidence. [Citations.] It has no bearing on the prosecution’s burden to pro

2026(People v. Davis (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 617, 634, 638 ; see People v. Martinez (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 537, 545 [“the corpus delicti rule has never been applied to other-crimes evidence introduced for impeachment purposes in the guilt phase of a trial”]; cf. People v. Monette (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1572, 1575 [the corpus delicti rule does not apply to proof of alleged probation violations, because “the probation revocation hearing differs so substantially from a criminal prosecution”].) Conner argues that the court erred by relying on his statements to the undercover agents that he was involved i

2023(People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 (Alvarez).) “The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to satisfy the policy of the law that ‘one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.’ ” (People v. Miranda (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 98, 107 ; see also Alvarez, supra, at p. 1169 .) Generally, the rule applies to crimes for which a defendant is on trial, and courts have not extended the rule to other crimes with which a defendant is not charged. ( Denis, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568–570 [corpus delicti rule did not apply to “uncharged

2024(People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 317 .) In Krebs, the Supreme Court described the quantum of proof sufficient to satisfy the rule: “ ‘The amount of independent proof of a crime required [to satisfy the corpus delicti rule] is quite small.’ [Citation.] The prosecution need not adduce ‘independent evidence of every physical act constituting an element of an offense.’ [Citation.] Instead, it need only make ‘some indication that the charged crime actually happened,’ so as to ensure ‘that the accused is not admitting to a crime that never occurred.’ ” (Ibid.) Only “ ‘slight’ ” independent evi

2023(See People v. Krebs, supra, 8 Cal.5th at 19 p. 317 [the required amount of independent proof to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite small and “ need only make ‘some indication that the charged crime actually happened’ ”].) Contrary to defendant’s claim, the evidence here was sufficient to satisfy the corpus delicti rule.

2023In People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 , the court clarified that the People were not required to establish the corpus delicti of an underlying felony used to convict an accused of murder on a felony-murder theory (People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672 , 680–681, disapproved of on other grounds in People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684, fn. 12 ), but that the “general law” proviso incorporated the corpus delicti requirement for felonies supporting special circumstance allegations, which if found true, would subject the defendant to a penalty phase and possibly to the punishment of deat

2003In California, it has traditionally been held, the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the defendant.” (P eople v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168-1169 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ], italics omitted.) In People v. Cantrell (1973) 8 Cal.3d 672, 680-681 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 792 , 504 P.2d 1256 ], we held that the corpus delicti rule requiring proof independent of the defendant’s statements did not apply to proof of a felony underlying a charge of felony murder.

2023(People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 (Alvarez).) “The purpose of the corpus delicti rule is to satisfy the policy of the law that ‘one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.’ ” (People v. Miranda (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 98, 107 ; see also Alvarez, supra, at p. 1169 .) Generally, the rule applies to crimes for which a defendant is on trial, and courts have not extended the rule to other crimes with which a defendant is not charged. ( Denis, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568–570 [corpus delicti rule did not apply to “uncharged

2023In Denis, defendant’s admission to uncharged crimes was admitted under Evidence Code section 1101 without independent proof that such crime was committed. ( Denis, supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 568–570.) The Denis court noted that the corpus delicti rule is based in common law and that there was no application of the corpus delicti rule to uncharged offenses found “in the secondary sources.

2016A slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient. [Citations.]” (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 624-625 ; People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 1083, 1126-1128 .) “We reemphasize that the quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing. [Citations.]” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 .) Such was present in this case.

2015His statements were admissible in any event. 5 II The Corpus Delicti Has Been Satisfactorily Established “[T]he corpus delicti of a crime is (1) the fact of the . . . harm, and (2) the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” (People v. Dorsey (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 953, 961 .) These elements may be established by “circumstantial evidence” and by only “[a] slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed . . . .” (People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 624-625 , superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in People v. Falsetta (1999) 21 Cal

2023Both Valencia and Hamilton held that the corpus delicti rule applies to a defendant’s confession of nonadjudicated crimes at the penalty phase of a capital trial. ( Valencia, supra, at pp. 296–297; Hamilton, supra, at p. 129 .) This case is not a capital case and defendant’s confession was introduced during the trial and not in the penalty phase.

2008Such is the common-law rule and rule of most other jurisdictions (7 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed 1940) §§ 2070-2073, pp. 393—406; McCormick, Evidence (1954) § 110, pp. 229-231).” (Hamilton, supra, 60 Cal.2d at p. 129, some italics added.) The italicized passage addresses the guilt phase of a criminal trial and none of the authorities cited by Hamilton involved uncharged acts, only the corpus delicti rule related to charged crimes.

2024(Id. at p. 886.) Expert testimony was also used to satisfy the corpus delicti rule in People v. Culton (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 363 .

2002The Court of Appeal rejected the People's claim, inspired by a concurring opinion in People v. Culton (1992) 11 Cal. App.4th 363 , 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 189 ( Culton ), that Proposition 8 had abrogated the corpus delicti rule.

2026(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2025(People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 ; People v. Zapien 10. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 929 , 985–986.) “[I]dentity is not an element of a crime for corpus delicti purposes.” (People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 .) “[T]he quantum of evidence the People must produce in order to satisfy the corpus delicti rule is quite modest; case law describes it as a ‘slight or prima facie’ showing.” (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368 (Jennings).) “The independent proof may be circumstantial and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt, but is sufficient if it permits an inference of crimina

2025(People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1431 ; Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp. 1168–1169; People v. Carpenter (1997) 15 Cal.4th 312, 394 , abrogated on other grounds by People v. Diaz, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1189–1190.) “However, the corpus delicti rule has no application when the defendant’s extrajudicial statements constitute the crime.” (People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408, 420 .) Because Jackson’s statements on the bus were the essential basis of the crimes with which he was charged they were not within the ambit of the corpus delicti rule.

2022That statement of intent did not have to be independently proved.” (Ibid.) Consistent with that decision, the bench notes for CALCRIM No. 359 state: “The corpus delicti cannot be proved by statements made before or after the crime, but can be proved by statements made during the crime.” In People v. Chan (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 408 , Division Five of Second District Court of Appeal followed Carpenter in finding the corpus delicti rule “has no application when the defendant’s extrajudicial statements constitute the crime” and “does not extend to statements made during the commission of the charg