Opinion ID: 1302329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proof Aliunde of Corpus Delicti

Text: The State argues the Court of Appeals erred in finding it failed to provide sufficient independent evidence of the corpus delicti to support Respondent's conviction. We agree. In Opper v. United States , the Supreme Court considered the extent of the corroboration of admissions necessary as a matter of law for a judgment of conviction, concluding: [T]he corroborative evidence need not be sufficient, independent of the statements, to establish the corpus delicti. It is necessary, therefore, to require the Government to introduce substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the statement. Thus, the independent evidence serves a dual function. It tends to make the admission reliable, thus corroborating it while also establishing independently the other necessary elements of the offense. It is sufficient if the corroboration supports the essential facts admitted sufficiently to justify a jury inference of their truth. Those facts plus the other evidence besides the admission must, of course, be sufficient to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 348 U.S. at 93, 75 S.Ct. at 164, 99 L.Ed. at 108-09. This standard enunciated in Opper has been adopted in other jurisdictions, including our sister state of North Carolina. See Trexler, 342 S.E.2d at 880 (The corpus delicti rule only requires evidence aliunde the confession which, when considered with the confession, supports the confession and permits a reasonable inference that the crime occurred. The independent evidence must touch or be concerned with the corpus delicti. However, [t]he rule does not require that the evidence aliunde the confession prove any element of the crime.). [9] We clarify the law in this State that, consistently with Opper and its progeny, the corroboration rule is satisfied if the State provides sufficient independent evidence which serves to corroborate the defendant's extra-judicial statements and, together with such statements, permits a reasonable belief that the crime occurred. Cf. Williams, 321 S.C. at 385 n. 2, 468 S.E.2d at 658 n. 2 (emphasizing that [p]roof of corpus delicti is not a prerequisite to the admission of an extra-judicial confession of a defendant.). Applying this rule to the facts at hand, we find the State provided sufficient independent evidence to support the trustworthiness of Respondent's statements to police. We further find this independent evidence, taken together with the statements, allowed a reasonable inference that the crime of driving under the influence was committed. The corpus delicti of DUI is: (1) driving a vehicle; (2) within this State; (3) while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, drugs, or any other substance of like character. Townsend, 321 S.C. at 58, 467 S.E.2d at 140. See also Sheppard, 248 S.C. at 466, 150 S.E.2d at 917 (act of operating motor vehicle while impaired gravamen of offense). Proof of the corpus delicti does not have to be in the form of direct evidence; it may be established by circumstantial evidence when it is the best evidence obtainable. Brown v. State, 307 S.C. 465, 415 S.E.2d 811 (1992). If there is any evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti, then it is the trial court's duty to pass that question on to the jury. Williams, 321 S.C. at 385, 468 S.E.2d at 658. We are not here to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the jury's verdict ... but we are concerned only with the question as to the sufficiency of that evidence to require the trial Judge to submit the issue ... to the jury. State v. Blocker, 205 S.C. 303, 307, 31 S.E.2d 908, 910 (1944) (quoting Edwards, 173 S.C. at 165, 175 S.E. at 278). The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby reversed and Respondent's conviction is reinstated. REVERSED. TOAL, MOORE, and BURNETT, JJ., concur. FINNEY, C.J., dissenting in separate opinion.