What is the test for establishing a corpus delicti in a motor vehicle case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Hanggi, 265 Cal.App.2d Supp. 969, 70 Cal.Rptr. 540 (Cal. Super. 1968):
Although it is true that the corpus delicti must be established by evidence other than the declarations or statements of the defendant, it is equally well established that the corpus may be proved by circumstantial evidence and by inferences reasonably drawn therefrom (People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545, 197 P.2d 12). Similarly the prosecution is not required to establish the corpus delicti by proof as clear and convincing as is necessary to establish the fact of guilt, [265 Cal.App.2d Supp. 973] rather slight or prima facie proof is sufficient for such purpose (People v. Mehaffey, supra, at p. 545, 197 P.2d 12).
In the instant case it appears that the portion of the recording which was heard by the jury was received only to demonstrate the quality of defendant's voice. Such use is proper (People v. Young, 224 Cal.App.2d 420, 424, 36 Cal.Rptr. 672). Although it appears that the statements made by defendant contained no admissions or confessions regarding the crime charged, even if such had been included the evidence heretofore set forth was clearly sufficient to establish the corpus.
3. The failure to advise defendant of the options provided under Vehicle Code 13353.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
