corpus delicti rule in New Mexico

2023State v. Weisser, 2007- 2 NMCA-015, ¶ 30, 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 , abrogated on other grounds as 3 recognized by Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 49 ; see id. (holding that multiple 4 extrajudicial admissions does not establish the trustworthiness of statements by a 5 defendant for the corpus delicti rule).

2023State v. Weisser, 2007- 2 NMCA-015, ¶ 30, 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 , abrogated on other grounds as 3 recognized by Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 49 ; see id. (holding that multiple 4 extrajudicial admissions does not establish the trustworthiness of statements by a 5 defendant for the corpus delicti rule).

2023See NMSA 1978, § 30-9-11(D)(1) (2009); see also Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 10-11 . {7} The corpus delicti rule provides that “unless the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been otherwise established, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on [the] extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused.” State v. Paris, 1966- NMSC-039, ¶ 6, 76 N.M. 291 , 414 P.2d 512 . “[U]nder New Mexico’s modern approach, a defendant’s extrajudicial statements may be used to establish the corpus delicti when the prosecution is able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession and introduce som

2023See NMSA 1978, § 30-9-11(D)(1) (2009); see also Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 10-11 . {7} The corpus delicti rule provides that “unless the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been otherwise established, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on [the] extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused.” State v. Paris, 1966- NMSC-039, ¶ 6, 76 N.M. 291 , 414 P.2d 512 . “[U]nder New Mexico’s modern approach, a defendant’s extrajudicial statements may be used to establish the corpus delicti when the prosecution is able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession and introduce som

2024After due consideration, we remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed summary disposition was incorrect, and we therefore affirm. {2} Defendant continues to argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the offenses. [MIO 6-11] See State v. Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 45 , 390 P.3d 212 (“The corpus delicti rule provides that unless the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been otherwise established, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused.” (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)

2023State v. Weisser, 2007- 2 NMCA-015, ¶ 30, 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 , abrogated on other grounds as 3 recognized by Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 49 ; see id. (holding that multiple 4 extrajudicial admissions does not establish the trustworthiness of statements by a 5 defendant for the corpus delicti rule).

2021L.J. 817 , 817 (2003). {30} Despite its compelling purpose, many state and federal courts no longer apply the traditional corpus delicti rule due to concerns that it had become merely a “doctrinal obstacle[] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” State v. Wilson, 2011- NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Harris, 575 A.2d 223, 227 (Conn. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 & n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2021L.J. 817 , 817 (2003). {30} Despite its compelling purpose, many state and federal courts no longer apply the traditional corpus delicti rule due to concerns that it had become merely a “doctrinal obstacle[] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” State v. Wilson, 2011- NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Harris, 575 A.2d 223, 227 (Conn. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 & n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2017In response to these shortcomings, the United States Supreme Court 14 replaced the corpus delicti rule with the “trustworthiness” doctrine, which requires 15 corroboration of the trustworthiness of the defendant’s admissions or the essential 16 facts in the defendant’s admissions to sustain a conviction based on those admissions. 17 See Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶ 15 (citing Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84 , 93 18 (1954)).

2006In Opper v. United States, 348 U.S. 84, 93 , 75 S.Ct. 158 , 99 L.Ed. 101 (1954), and Smith v. United States, 348 U.S. 147, 156 , 75 S.Ct. 194 , 99 L.Ed. 192 (1954), the United States Supreme Court rejected the corpus delicti rule in favor of the “trustworthiness” doctrine.

2021L.J. 817 , 817 (2003). {30} Despite its compelling purpose, many state and federal courts no longer apply the traditional corpus delicti rule due to concerns that it had become merely a “doctrinal obstacle[] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” State v. Wilson, 2011- NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Harris, 575 A.2d 223, 227 (Conn. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 & n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2021L.J. 817 , 817 (2003). {30} Despite its compelling purpose, many state and federal courts no longer apply the traditional corpus delicti rule due to concerns that it had become merely a “doctrinal obstacle[] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” State v. Wilson, 2011- NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Harris, 575 A.2d 223, 227 (Conn. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 & n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2006See id. (“When there is, in addition to a confession, proof of the corpus delicti established by independent evidence, the defendant’s voluntary confession will support a conviction.”). {13} The corpus delicti rule first developed in England during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

2000Contrary to these clearly articulated principles, Defendant mischaracterizes the corpus delicti rule as established by proof that the defendant committed the crime charged, erroneously relying on Nance. {16} “It is well settled that the corpus delicti of the crime charged in the information cannot be established solely by the extra-judicial confession of the accused.” Id. at 44 , 419 P.2d at 245-46 .

2023“This independent evidence can consist of 6 either direct or circumstantial evidence, but such evidence must be independent of a 7 defendant’s own extrajudicial statements.” Martinez, 2021-NMSC-012 , ¶ 31 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 9 {8} The State argues it presented the following evidence at trial to corroborate 10 Defendant’s admission that she operated a motor vehicle: a 911 call was made that 11 reported a vehicle collision at the parking lot; Defendant was physically present at 12 the parking lot when Officer Shatto arrived; Officer Shatto observed the cars 13 Defe

2023See NMSA 1978, § 30-9-11(D)(1) (2009); see also Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶¶ 10-11 . {7} The corpus delicti rule provides that “unless the corpus delicti of the offense charged has been otherwise established, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on [the] extrajudicial confessions or admissions of the accused.” State v. Paris, 1966- NMSC-039, ¶ 6, 76 N.M. 291 , 414 P.2d 512 . “[U]nder New Mexico’s modern approach, a defendant’s extrajudicial statements may be used to establish the corpus delicti when the prosecution is able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession and introduce som

2021L.J. 817 , 817 (2003). {30} Despite its compelling purpose, many state and federal courts no longer apply the traditional corpus delicti rule due to concerns that it had become merely a “doctrinal obstacle[] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” State v. Wilson, 2011- NMSC-001, ¶ 10, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Harris, 575 A.2d 223, 227 (Conn. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 & n.6, 275 P.3d 110 .

2010A number of legal commentators and courts have expressed concern that the corpus delicti rule was “turn[ing] into [a] doctrinal obstacle[ ] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” Conn. v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189 , 575 A.2d 223, 227 (1990); see also Ohio v. Black, 54 Ohio St.2d 304 , 376 N.E.2d 948, 951 (1978) (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social-policy considerations.” (internal quotation marks and ci

2012See People v. Herrera, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578, 585-86 (Ct. App. 2006) (refusing to hold that “the corpus delicti rule should not apply to preliminary hearings” because the court was “not willing to turn [its] back on a long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the rule to preliminary hearings”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. Pa. L.

2011See People v. Herrera, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578, 585-86 (Ct. App. 2006) (refusing to hold that “the corpus delicti rule should not apply to preliminary hearings” because the court was “not willing to turn [its] back on a long and unbroken line of cases that have applied the rule to preliminary hearings”) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession, 103 U. Pa. L.

2011See State v. Duarte, 2004-NMCA-117, ¶ 11 , 136 N.M. 404 , 98 P.3d 1054 (recognizing that this Court's ability to disregard Supreme Court precedent is limited to cases in which "the precise issue has not been already decided by our Supreme Court"). {19} In response to the State's contention that Defendant's admission is not necessary to establish the corpus delicti, Defendant argues *310 that this case is not about the corpus delicti rule, but instead is about the due process requirement of corroboration of an untrustworthy confession.

2011See State v. Duarte, 2004-NMCA-117, ¶ 11 , 136 N.M. 404 , 98 P.3d 1054 (recognizing that this Court's ability to disregard Supreme Court precedent is limited to cases in which "the precise issue has not been already decided by our Supreme Court"). {19} In response to the State's contention that Defendant's admission is not necessary to establish the corpus delicti, Defendant argues *310 that this case is not about the corpus delicti rule, but instead is about the due process requirement of corroboration of an untrustworthy confession.

2011In New Mexico, the traditional corpus delicti rule has been abandoned, and courts apply a modified version of the trustworthiness rule adopted in Paris and recently applied and interpreted in State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶ 17 , 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 (acknowledging that New Mexico has adopted the modified trustworthiness doctrine espoused in State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37 , 152 A.2d 50, 61 (1959)).

2011In New Mexico, the traditional corpus delicti rule has been abandoned, and courts apply a modified version of the trustworthiness rule adopted in Paris and recently applied and interpreted in State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶ 17 , 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 (acknowledging that New Mexico has adopted the modified trustworthiness doctrine espoused in State v. Lucas, 30 N.J. 37 , 152 A.2d 50, 61 (1959)).

2006See State v. Sanchez, 109 N.M. 718, 719 , 790 P.2d 515, 516 (Ct.App.1990). {20} In Doe, 94 N.M. at 548 , 613 P.2d at 418 , a majority of our Supreme Court purportedly applied the Pans rule to a case involving a juvenile’s confession to shoplifting alcohol from an Albertson’s grocery store.

2006See State v. Sanchez, 109 N.M. 718, 719 , 790 P.2d 515, 516 (Ct.App.1990). {20} In Doe, 94 N.M. at 548 , 613 P.2d at 418 , a majority of our Supreme Court purportedly applied the Pans rule to a case involving a juvenile’s confession to shoplifting alcohol from an Albertson’s grocery store.

2010A number of legal commentators and courts have expressed concern that the corpus delicti rule was “turn[ing] into [a] doctrinal obstacle[ ] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” Conn. v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189 , 575 A.2d 223, 227 (1990); see also Ohio v. Black, 54 Ohio St.2d 304 , 376 N.E.2d 948, 951 (1978) (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social-policy considerations.” (internal quotation marks and ci

2006Perhaps mindful of such criticism, numerous states have not adopted the trustworthiness doctrine in its entirety, but rather have simply “modified their treatment of the corpus delicti rule in light of the federal trustworthiness doctrine.” Ray, 926 P.2d at 910 (Talmadge, J., concurring); see also Moran, supra, at 833-35 & n. 107.

2006The question then becomes what type of evidence can be used to establish the corpus delicti. {12} According to the corpus delicti rule, the corpus delicti of a charged crime can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 145 , 584 P.2d 182, 192 (Ct.App.1978), but such evidence must be independent of a defendant’s own extrajudicial statements.

2006The question then becomes what type of evidence can be used to establish the corpus delicti. {12} According to the corpus delicti rule, the corpus delicti of a charged crime can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 145 , 584 P.2d 182, 192 (Ct.App.1978), but such evidence must be independent of a defendant’s own extrajudicial statements.

2023Under New Mexico’s modern corpus delicti analysis, known as the “modified trustworthiness rule,” a defendant’s confession or admission may be used to establish the corpus delicti of a crime only “when the prosecution is able to demonstrate the trustworthiness of the confession and introduce some independent evidence of a criminal act.” Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001, ¶ 15 ; see also State v. Yanni, 2023-NMCA-084 , ¶ 7, 538 P.3d 121 (same).

2010A number of legal commentators and courts have expressed concern that the corpus delicti rule was “turn[ing] into [a] doctrinal obstacle[ ] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” Conn. v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189 , 575 A.2d 223, 227 (1990); see also Ohio v. Black, 54 Ohio St.2d 304 , 376 N.E.2d 948, 951 (1978) (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social-policy considerations.” (internal quotation marks and ci

2010A number of legal commentators and courts have expressed concern that the corpus delicti rule was “turn[ing] into [a] doctrinal obstacle[ ] whereby the guilty can escape just punishment.” Conn. v. Harris, 215 Conn. 189 , 575 A.2d 223, 227 (1990); see also Ohio v. Black, 54 Ohio St.2d 304 , 376 N.E.2d 948, 951 (1978) (“Considering the revolution in criminal law of the 1960’s and the vast number of procedural safeguards protecting the due-process rights of criminal defendants, the corpus delicti rule is supported by few practical or social-policy considerations.” (internal quotation marks and ci

2010The advent of the rule “was influenced somewhat by those widely reported cases in which the ‘victim’ returned alive after his supposed murderer had been tried and convicted, and in some instances executed.” City of Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wash.2d 569 , 723 P.2d 1135, 1139 (1986) (en banc); see Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶ 13 , 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 . {10} In its traditional form, the corpus delicti rule required the prosecution to introduce evidence of a criminal act separate and apart from an accused’s extrajudicial confession.

2010The advent of the rule “was influenced somewhat by those widely reported cases in which the ‘victim’ returned alive after his supposed murderer had been tried and convicted, and in some instances executed.” City of Bremerton v. Corbett, 106 Wash.2d 569 , 723 P.2d 1135, 1139 (1986) (en banc); see Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, ¶ 13 , 141 N.M. 93 , 150 P.3d 1043 . {10} In its traditional form, the corpus delicti rule required the prosecution to introduce evidence of a criminal act separate and apart from an accused’s extrajudicial confession.

2006See, e.g., Chaves, 27 N.M. at 510 , 202 P. at 696 (“The law is that the corpus delicti must be shown independently, but that, once shown, the other elements necessary to a conviction might be proved by the confession alone.”).

2006See, e.g., Chaves, 27 N.M. at 510 , 202 P. at 696 (“The law is that the corpus delicti must be shown independently, but that, once shown, the other elements necessary to a conviction might be proved by the confession alone.”).

2006Similarly, we observe that our court seemed to follow the corpus delicti rule in State v. Gruender, 83 N.M. 327, 330 , 491 P.2d 1082, 1085 (Ct.App.1971), but more recently we have appeared to follow the Paris rule.

2006Similarly, we observe that our court seemed to follow the corpus delicti rule in State v. Gruender, 83 N.M. 327, 330 , 491 P.2d 1082, 1085 (Ct.App.1971), but more recently we have appeared to follow the Paris rule.

2006State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 481-82 (Utah 2003). {14} The initial purpose behind the corpus delicti rule was “to prevent the conviction of those who confessed to non-existent crimes as a result of coercion or mental illness.” Moran, supra, at 817.

2006State v. Mauchley, 67 P.3d 477, 481-82 (Utah 2003). {14} The initial purpose behind the corpus delicti rule was “to prevent the conviction of those who confessed to non-existent crimes as a result of coercion or mental illness.” Moran, supra, at 817.

2006See, e.g., People v. McMahan, 451 Mich. 543 , 548 N.W.2d 199, 203-05 (1996) (Boyle, J., dissenting); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 493-94 (1985); Mauchley, 67 P.3d at 485-88 ; State v. Ray, 130 Wash.2d 673 , 926 P.2d 904, 908-09 (1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring); Mullen, supra, at 401-07.

2006See, e.g., People v. McMahan, 451 Mich. 543 , 548 N.W.2d 199, 203-05 (1996) (Boyle, J., dissenting); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 493-94 (1985); Mauchley, 67 P.3d at 485-88 ; State v. Ray, 130 Wash.2d 673 , 926 P.2d 904, 908-09 (1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring); Mullen, supra, at 401-07.

2006See Sanchez, 109 N.M. at 719 , 790 P.2d at 516 (citing Paris as the general rule in New Mexico). {23} We observe that while the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Sosa once again appears to signal a return to the corpus delicti rule, we do not interpret that decision to be a repudiation of the Paris rule.

2006See Sanchez, 109 N.M. at 719 , 790 P.2d at 516 (citing Paris as the general rule in New Mexico). {23} We observe that while the Supreme Court’s most recent decision in Sosa once again appears to signal a return to the corpus delicti rule, we do not interpret that decision to be a repudiation of the Paris rule.

2006See, e.g., People v. McMahan, 451 Mich. 543 , 548 N.W.2d 199, 203-05 (1996) (Boyle, J., dissenting); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 493-94 (1985); Mauchley, 67 P.3d at 485-88 ; State v. Ray, 130 Wash.2d 673 , 926 P.2d 904, 908-09 (1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring); Mullen, supra, at 401-07.

2006See, e.g., People v. McMahan, 451 Mich. 543 , 548 N.W.2d 199, 203-05 (1996) (Boyle, J., dissenting); State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487, 493-94 (1985); Mauchley, 67 P.3d at 485-88 ; State v. Ray, 130 Wash.2d 673 , 926 P.2d 904, 908-09 (1996) (Talmadge, J., concurring); Mullen, supra, at 401-07.