Filed 10/8/13 In re J.G. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A137262

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. J38856)

J.G. (minor) was found to have committed battery on a person with whom he had 

a dating relationship largely on the testimony of a witness who saw him beating a 

woman. The only evidence of a personal relationship between minor and the victim was 

minor‘s own statement to police that the woman was his ―girlfriend.‖ Minor contends the 

doctrine of corpus delicti required the prosecution to introduce evidence of the nature of 

the relationship independent of his statement. Finding no such requirement, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,

subdivision (a) on October 23, 2012, minor was alleged to have committed misdemeanor 

battery on a person with whom he had a previous dating relationship (Pen. Code, § 243, 

subd. (e)(1)). 

Only two witnesses testified at trial. The first, a bystander, said he was driving in 

Fairfield when he spotted minor sitting on top of a female, hitting her with both hands. In 
2

one hand minor held a cell phone, while the other was a closed fist. The witness 

estimated minor took from four to six swings at the victim, who was struggling to get out 

from beneath him. When the witness stopped his car and approached them, minor ran 

off. The ―frantic‖ victim was crying and shaking, had bleeding wounds, and complained 

of headaches. The witness called the police. 

The second witness, a police officer, testified she located minor after having been 

alerted to the assault. After minor had been detained, he said to the police, ―Why are you 

guys stopping me? We were just in a fight. My girlfriend and I were just arguing.‖ 

Minor‘s counsel argued that because the victim had not testified, there was no 

evidence the contact between them was nonconsensual. He also contended there was 

―insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the nature of the relationship.‖ 

The juvenile court found the allegations true. Minor was continued as a ward of 

the court and placed in the New Foundations program. 

II. DISCUSSION

Minor contends the jurisdictional allegations are unsupported by the evidence 

because there was no independent evidence of the nature of his relationship with the 

victim, as required by the doctrine of corpus delicti.

―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. In California, . . . the prosecution cannot satisfy this burden by 

relying exclusively upon the extrajudicial statements, confessions, or admissions of the 

defendant.‖ (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168–1169 (Alvarez).)1 The 

purpose of the requirement of evidence independent of the defendant‘s statements is ―to 

assure that  ̳the accused is not admitting to a crime that never occurred.‘ ‖ (People v. 

Jones (1998) 17 Cal.4th 279, 301 (Jones).) ―  ̳ ―The independent proof may be by 

circumstantial evidence [citation], and it need not be beyond a reasonable doubt. A slight 

 

1

Proof of criminal agency requires evidence from which it might be concluded 

that the injury or harm resulted from the intentional act of a human being. (People v. 

Culton (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 363, 367.)
3

or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, 

is sufficient.‖ ‘ ‖ (People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1127–1128 (Gutierrez).)

The ―corpus‖ of a crime is not synonymous with the ―elements‖ of the crime. 

(People v. Hawkins (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 675, 680.) The prosecution, for example, 

need not prove the identity of the perpetrator by independent evidence, nor is independent 

evidence required to demonstrate the degree of a homicide. (Ibid.) ―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. [Citation.] In every case, once the necessary quantum of independent 

evidence is present, the defendant‘s extrajudicial statements may then be considered for 

their full value to strengthen the case on all issues.‖ (Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at 

p. 1171.)

A clear illustration of the distinction between the corpus of a crime and its 

elements is found in Jones, supra, 17 Cal.4th 279. The victim in that decision was shot 

in the head and left to die by a roadside. Her underclothing had been removed, and 

residual semen was found on her genitals and anus. (Id. at p. 291.) Although there was 

no physical evidence that the victim had engaged in oral sexual acts, the defendant was 

convicted of aiding and abetting forced oral copulation because he had admitted the 

crime to police. On appeal, the defendant argued for a reversal of this conviction under 

the doctrine of corpus delicti. In affirming the trial court‘s decision to overturn a 

magistrate‘s dismissal of the charge, the court held: ―[Penal Code] Section 288a, 

subdivision (a), defines this crime as  ̳the act of copulating the mouth of one person with 

the sexual organ or anus of another person.‘ [¶] Keeping in mind the low threshold of 

proof required to satisfy the corpus delicti rule, we conclude that the magistrate erred in 

finding this low threshold was not met by the evidence presented at the preliminary 

examination. The state of the victim‘s clothing (no underwear or shoes) and the forensic 

evidence . . . indicates multiple sexual acts occurred. That the victim was forcibly 

abducted, beaten, shot in the head, and left by the side of the road for dead gives rise to 

an inference that the sexual activity that occurred was against the victim‘s will. This 
4

circumstantial evidence of multiple forcible sexual acts sufficiently establishes the 

requisite prima facie showing of both (i) an injury, loss or harm, and (ii) the involvement 

of a criminal agency. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [W]e have never interpreted the corpus delicti rule so 

strictly that independent evidence of every physical act constituting an element of an 

offense is necessary. Instead, there need only be independent evidence establishing a 

slight or prima facie showing of some injury, loss or harm, and that a criminal agency 

was involved.‖ (Id. at pp. 302, 303.) In short, the court affirmed the conviction despite 

the lack of any independent evidence of the primary element of the crime, sexual contact 

with the victim‘s mouth. Other cases have similarly held the corpus delicti doctrine does 

not require independent evidence of penetration for a conviction of rape (People v. 

Jennings (1991) 53 Cal.3d 334, 368–369) or knowledge and intent for a conviction of 

aiding and abetting (Gutierrez, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 1128).

The bystander‘s testimony left little doubt minor had committed a crime. He said 

minor struck the victim repeatedly as she struggled to escape and appeared to have 

inflicted wounds. When the witness approached, minor ran away, suggesting awareness 

of the wrongfulness of his conduct. This testimony constituted more than adequate 

independent evidence of ―both (i) an injury, loss or harm, and (ii) the involvement of a 

criminal agency.‖ (Jones, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 302.) The prosecution having provided 

independent evidence of the corpus of a crime, ―the [minor‘s] extrajudicial statements 

[could] then be considered for their full value to strengthen the case on all issues.‖ 

(Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 1171.)

In considering the requirements of corpus delicti, it is noteworthy that minor‘s 

statement to police did not constitute the admission of a crime. He merely told the police 

the victim was his girlfriend. As a result, there was no risk minor would be convicted, 

solely on the basis of his statement, of a crime that never occurred. Rather, minor‘s 

relationship with the victim was criminally material only because it affected the potential 
5

penalty.2 It was in the nature of a sentencing enhancement, which need not be supported 

by independent evidence. (People v. Shoemake (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 243, 252, 256.) 

In effect, the fact of a dating relationship ―does no more than aggravate the penalty for 

the underlying offense‖ and therefore required no independent evidence. (People v. 

Miranda (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 98, 102.)

Minor relies largely on cases discussing the concept of corpus delicti in deciding 

which factual issues must be submitted to the jury. (E.g., People v. Henderson (1976) 

58 Cal.App.3d 349, 358–359; People v. Jones (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 710, 716.) Because 

the cases were decided prior to virtually all the decisions cited above and employ the 

concept of corpus delicti in a different context, we find them unhelpful in determining 

which issues must be proven by independent evidence.

Even if minor‘s contention had substantive merit, we would find it forfeited. As 

minor acknowledges, his counsel did not object on grounds of corpus delicti in the 

juvenile court. We are persuaded by the reasoning of People v. Martinez (1994) 

26 Cal.App.4th 1098 (Martinez) and People v. Sally (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1621, 1628 

(Sally) that an objection was required to preserve the issue for appeal because ―  ̳[i]t may 

well be that ―proof of the corpus delicti was available and at hand during the trial, but in 

the absence of [a] specific objection calling for such proof it was omitted.‖ ‘ ‖ (Martinez, 

at pp. 1104–1105.)

Minor contends the Supreme Court rejected Martinez and Sally in footnote 8 of 

Alvarez, supra, 27 Cal.4th at page 1172. On the contrary, the Alvarez footnote stated 

only that the Supreme Court had never addressed the particular forfeiture issue raised 

here.3 Further, although the Alvarez footnote claimed that subsequent Court of Appeal 

 

2 Under Penal Code section 243, subdivision (a), the penalty for battery is a fine 

and six months in jail. When the battery is committed against a person with whom the 

defendant has a dating relationship, however, the jail term is increased to a year. (Id., 

subd. (e)(1).)

3

In People v. Wright (1990) 52 Cal.3d 367, disapproved on other grounds in 

People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 459, the court had required an objection in the 

trial court to preserve the issue of the improper admission of a defendant‘s statement in 
6

decisions addressing forfeiture were ―split,‖ the two decisions addressing the particular 

issue raised here, Martinez and Sally, both require an objection in the trial court to 

preserve a claim of insufficiency of independent evidence. The differing case cited by 

Alvarez, People v. Lara (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 658, addressed a different issue, the 

requirement for an objection to preserve a claim that the court failed to give a corpus 

delicti instruction. (Id. at p. 675.) On the issue raised here, the published appellate 

decisions are unanimous in requiring objection below.

Finally, minor contends his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing 

to object on grounds of sufficiency of the independent evidence under the corpus delicti 

doctrine. ―  ̳ ―  ̳Reviewing courts will reverse convictions [on direct appeal] on the 

ground of inadequate counsel only if the record on appeal affirmatively discloses that 

counsel had no rational tactical purpose for [his or her] act or omission.‘ ‖ [Citation.]‘ 

[Citation.] If the record on appeal  ̳ ―  ̳sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to 

act in the manner challenged[,] . . . unless counsel was asked for an explanation and 

failed to provide one, or unless there simply could be no satisfactory explanation,‘ the 

claim on appeal must be rejected.‖ ‘ ‖ (People v. Vines (2011) 51 Cal.4th 830, 876.)

We cannot say on the record before us that there could be no satisfactory 

explanation for counsel‘s failure to raise the issue. In particular, we cannot rule out the 

possibility that counsel refrained from making the objection because it could have led the 

prosecution to introduce additional, more damaging evidence of the assault. 

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

the absence of independent evidence of a crime (id. at p. 404), but it had not addressed 

the requirement to preserve an insufficiency argument. 
7

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Dondero, J.

_________________________

Sepulveda, J.*

 

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California 

Constitution.