Opinion ID: 1181051
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Felony Murder/Corpus Delicti

Text: In People v. Mattson (1984) 37 Cal.3d 85 [207 Cal. Rptr. 278, 688 P.2d 887], we reversed a judgment for error at the guilt phase, but stated for guidance on retrial that, based on our interpretation of section 190.4, subdivision (a) (which specifies that any felony on which a special circumstance is based must be charged and proved pursuant to the general law applying to the trial and conviction of the crime; italics added), the corpus delicti of felony based special circumstances must be established independently of an accused's extrajudicial statements. (37 Cal.3d at p. 94.) The People, not bothering to analyze the effect of Mattson on these facts, argue simply that Mattson should be overruled. We see no reason to depart from our recent interpretation of the statute. We also conclude that the concerns of the corpus delicti rule are sufficiently satisfied in this case. (8) The rule, of course, requires that the corpus delicti of an offense  here, the lewd and lascivious act on a minor special circumstance (§§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(v), 288)  must be proved independently of the accused's extrajudicial admissions. ( People v. Alcala (1984) 36 Cal.3d 604, 624 [205 Cal. Rptr. 775, 685 P.2d 1126].) As Alcala states, [t]he independent proof may be by circumstantial evidence [citation], and it need not be beyond a reasonable doubt. A slight or prima facie showing, permitting the reasonable inference that a crime was committed, is sufficient. [Citations.] If the independent proof meets this threshold requirement, the accused's admissions may then be considered to strengthen the case on all issues. [Citation.] ( Id., at pp. 624-625.) (9) Measured by this standard, we hold there was adequate evidence, apart from defendant's admissions, that the alleged sexual offense occurred. Defendant was seen by one witness riding a motorcycle in the area of (and on the date of) the victim's disappearance, and the victim was last seen by another witness riding a motorcycle with a man matching defendant's description; no clothes were found at the scene of the crime; defendant's own experts described his primary diagnosis as pedophilia; his admission of similar sexual conduct as to the very similar Texas crimes was confirmed by scientific evidence; and finally, the physical evidence of the homicide lends reliability to other aspects of defendant's confession, namely, his description of the lewd and lascivious conduct. In view of the nature of the offense and the circumstances of this case (i.e., the body was not discovered for some time, hence it was impossible to verify the sexual conduct by scientific evidence, and there were apparently no eyewitnesses to the crime) we do not believe the corpus delicti rule can be interpreted to call for more; the law does not require impossible showings.