Court Opinion

ID: 9540821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:20:07.200372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:08.926520
License: Public Domain

*92Seinfeld, C.J.
(dissenting) — I believe that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Thus, I dissent.
Although the case law uses the term "prima facie” to describe the nature of the evidence necessary to support the admission of a confession, the definition of prima facie in this context is simply "evidence of sufficient circumstances which would support a logical and reasonable inference of the facts sought to be proved.” State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 796, 888 P.2d 1177 (1995). In the present case, there is evidence that Sandra died in At-en’s sole custody, that Sandra died from acute respiratory failure, and that one possible cause of acute respiratory failure is manual interference or smothering. Although it would be reasonable and logical to draw multiple inferences from this evidence, clearly one reasonable and logical inference is that Aten smothered Sandra.
The majority states, "[i]t would be speculative to conclude from the autopsy report that Aten was criminally negligent.” It contends that the evidence here is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti because it "fails to rule out. . . innocence.” I believe that the majority is applying an incorrect standard.
Although the autopsy report, standing alone, would not support the conclusion that Aten was criminally negligent, prima facie evidence need not persuade the fact finder of the truth of the disputed proposition. It simply must support an inference that the proposition is as the State alleges.
Thus, I believe that the trial court did not err in giving the jury the opportunity to consider Aten’s confession. In all other respects, I concur with the majority. Based on my opinion of the corpus delicti issue, I would affirm the conviction.
Review granted at 128 Wn.2d 1016 (1996).