corpus delecti rule in California

2024(People v. Foster (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 20, 26-27 ; see also People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1223 [disposition of codefendant’s case is not relevant to the defendant’s sentence at penalty phase].) Lastly, defendant contends that his statement at the parole hearing is the only support for his continuing conviction and questions whether the prosecution “satisf[ied] the corpus delecti rule.” Not only did defendant forfeit this argument by not raising it with the trial court, but the argument also lacks merit because the court did not rely on defendant’s statements to prove the crime itself

2024The People need make only a prima facie showing ‘ “permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed.” ’ [Citations.] The inference need not be ‘the only, or even the most compelling, one . . . [but need only be] a reasonable one.’ ” (People v. Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279 , 301–302.) That low standard is easily met here by the evidence we have already recited, which, independent of defendant’s admission and Doe 1’s statement to her mother, supports a reasonable inference of ongoing sexual contact between him and Doe 1.

2024The corpus delecti rule “ ‘requires corroboration of the defendant’s extrajudicial utterances insofar as they indicate a crime was committed, and forces the People to supply, as part of their burden of proof in every criminal prosecution, some evidence of the corpus delecti aside from, or in addition to, such statements.’ ” (People v. Krebs (2019) 8 Cal.5th 265, 317 .) The purpose of this rule “is to assure that ‘the accused is not admitting to a crime that never occurred.’ [Citation.] The amount of independent proof of a 22 crime required for this purpose is quite small; [it has been] describ

2021(People v. Reyes (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1491, 1498 .) Under this rule, every conviction “must prove the corpus delecti, 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. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 (Alvarez).

2021If we were to find the instruction ambiguous, we would find the likely misreading involved the use of evidence proved by a preponderance of the evidence to prove any required “intent” element of the charged offenses involving Ericka. 29 instruct otherwise.” The court also gave CALCRIM No. 224 on sufficiency of circumstantial evidence which provided in part, “Before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to conclude that a fact necessary to find the defendant guilty has been proved, you must be convinced that the People have proved each fact essential to that conclusion beyond a reasonable dou

2019Moreover, Smith’s argument that Bennett, Beal, and Roland lacked credibility and thus their statements that he had a gun do not supply substantial evidence of that fact misapprehends the corpus delicti requirement. “[O]nce the necessary quantum of evidence is present to satisfy the corpus delecti rule, the defendant’s extrajudicial statements may be considered for their full value to strengthen the case on all issues.” (In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, 1205 .) Because, as stated above, there was some evidence that Smith possessed a gun during the BART shooting aside from his admission o

2015The issue is identity. 16 While this appeal was pending, defendant’s appellate counsel was able, in an unrelated case, to convince the Sixth Appellate District in People v. Rivas (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Rivas), to hold that the corpus delecti instruction is deficient to the extent it suggests, through its reference to identity, that criminal defendants can be convicted based only on extrajudicial statements that they committed a crime.

2015(Id. at pp. 1427-1431 [finding no constitutional violation or prejudicial state law warranting reversal].) The Second Appellate District disagreed with Rivas’s criticism of CALCRIM No. 359, in People v. Rosales (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1258 (Rosales).) Rivas, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th 1410 , acknowledged the corpus delecti rule requires some evidence that a crime occurred, independent of the defendant’s statements, but the identity of the person who committed the crime is not part of the corpus delecti.

2015(Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 ]; People v. Moore (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1104, 1140 .) CALCRIM No. 359 sets forth the corpus delecti rule which essentially precludes conviction based solely on a defendant’s out-of-court statements.

2013(People v. Howk (1961) 56 Cal.2d 687, 706-707 .) The use notes for CALCRIM No. 359 likewise state that the instruction must always be given along with CALCRIM No. 358.