Corpus delicti

Corpus delicti rule applies at trial. (People v. Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334.) It still applies to some degree after Truth-in-Evidence law. (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161.)

Corpus delicti rule applies at preliminary hearing, which means that extrajudicial statements aren't admissible until corpus has been proven. (Hall v. Superior Court (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 844.)

The corpus delicti rule, as modified by People v. Alvarez, above, applies at felony preliminary examinations. (Jones v. Superior Court, 96 Cal. App. 3d 390, 396, 157 Cal. Rptr. 809 (1st Dist. 1979); Rayyis v. SuperiorRayyis v. Superior Court, 133 Cal. App. 4th 138, 147, 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12 (2d Dist. 2005); People v. Herrera, 136 Cal. App. 4th 1191, 1200, 39 Cal. Rptr. 3d 578 (4th Dist. 2006); People v. Powers-Monachello, 189 Cal. App. 4th 400, 408, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 899 (1st Dist. 2010).) However, the failure to make a corpus objection at a preliminary hearing waives the issue. (People v. Sally, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1621, 1627, 16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161 (2d Dist. 1993).)

The rule does not apply to a violation of probation hearing. (People v. Monette, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1572, 1574, 31 Cal. Rptr. 2d 203 (4th Dist. 1994). See also U.S. v. Hilger, 728 F.3d 947, 949 (9th Cir. 2013) (federal version of the rule does not apply to supervised release revocation proceedings).)

The rule does not apply at a Penal Code § 1538.5 suppression hearing, even in a DUI/accident case where the officer did not observe driving. (People v. Saunders, 26 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 21, 24, 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 195 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1994).)

DUI

• People v. Ellena, 67 Cal. App. 683, 686, 228 P. 389 (2d Dist. 1924): Corpus proved by evidence that all three occupants of front seat of car involved in accident were under the influence. • People v. Garcia, 149 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 50, 54, 197 Cal. Rptr. 277 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1983): DUI corpus requires prima facie showing that someone drove a vehicle on a highway under the influence; evidence sufficient where officer found defendants, apparently uninjured, leaning against passenger door of truck involved in accident, and noted strong odor of alcohol and other symptoms; all bystanders in the vicinity denied seeing the accident or driving the vehicle. (Note that later cases have criticized the use of bystander hearsay in Garcia.) • People v. Gapelu, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 1007, 265 Cal. Rptr. 94 (4th Dist. 1989): Corpus proved by evidence that defendant's vehicle had rear-ended another, killing or injuring several people, and contained an open, foaming bottle of beer on the driver's floorboard; defendant was the only person found near his vehicle, he had injuries consistent with having been the driver, and he twice tried to leave the scene during medical treatment. • People v. Scott, 76 Cal. App. 4th 411, 418, 90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 435 (1st Dist. 1999): Corpus evidence sufficient where defendant was found a quarter mile from a disabled vehicle in a desolate area with lug nuts and keys from the vehicle in his pocket and an injury to his forehead; no other people or vehicles were in the area, and the car was registered to a person living at the defendant's address. • People v. McNorton, 91 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 5, 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 930 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 2001): Corpus sufficient where a car was legally parked with a flat tire, and the only people in the vicinity, a female in the passenger seat and a male working on the tire, were obviously intoxicated. • People v. Martinez, 156 Cal. App. 4th 851, 855, 67 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670 (2d Dist. 2007): Corpus evidence sufficient where a vehicle was parked with engine running and lights on, facing the wrong direction outside defendant's place of business at 1:35 a.m., a woman was sitting in the passenger seat with her seat belt fastened, and defendant, the only other person in the vicinity, came out of the building as an officer approached.

People v. Komatsu, 212 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 261 Cal. Rptr. 681 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1989): Corpus sufficient where officers found defendant alone in a car registered to him about midnight; defendant was intoxicated and asleep on the front passenger seat; the car was obstructing the roadway near freeway on and off-ramps, its parking lights were on, and defendant had the car keys on his person.

    People v. Moreno, 188 Cal. App. 3d 1179, 1186, 233 Cal. Rptr. 863 (5th Dist. 1987): Where defendant was the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident, but was one of many persons found near the scene by police officers, case reversed for incompetence of defense counsel in failing to object to police testimony that all but defendant denied driving; the court held that where the suspected driver is the only intoxicated person, passengers and bystanders must be excluded as the driver by competent, nonhearsay evidence.
   • People v. Nelson, 140 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 3, 189 Cal. Rptr. 845 (App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1983) (disapproved of by, In re Christopher K., 2002 WL 1065579 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2002)): Insufficient corpus where defendant was one of two persons ejected from a vehicle during an accident and the other person was not intoxicated.

   Note that the `Nelson case has been criticized as being at odds with the often-stated rule that an equally plausible noncriminal explanation does not defeat a corpus showing. In this writer's opinion, that criticism is well taken and also applies to People v. Moreno, above.