Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents
F 8.83.4 n1 Proof Of Corpus Delicti Independent Of Admission Or Confession.
ALERT: CJ 8.83.4 was deleted by the CALJIC Committee in the 6th Edition (1997). See FORECITE F 8.83.4a for the text of former CJ 8.83.4.
Effective June 6, 1990, Proposition 115 (PC 190.41) eliminated the requirement that the corpus delicti of a felony based special circumstance be proved independent of the defendant’s extrajudicial statement. The effect of this provision is to overrule the opinion of the California Supreme Court in People v. Mattson (84) 37 C3d 85, 93-94 [207 CR 278].
Retroactivity Note: Despite its procedural appearance, this provision has the effect of permitting a defendant to be convicted with less evidence and, therefore, it may not be applied retroactively to crimes committed before June 6, 1990. (Tapia v. Superior Court (91) 53 C3d 282, 297-99 [279 CR 592]; People v. Smith (83) 34 C3d 251, 260-62 [193 CR 692].)
It should be noted, however, that the Attorney General asserts that there might not be a retroactivity problem for offenses which occurred prior to the decision in Mattson under the theory that Proposition 115 merely restores the law to what it was before Mattson. (See CACJ, 1990 Proposition 115 Review, pp. 162-63.)
F 8.83.4a
Corpus Delicti Must Be Proved Independent Of Admission Or
Confession — Special Circumstance Trial
*Former CJ 8.83.4 (deleted in the 6th Edition):
No special circumstance based upon the commission of a crime other than the murder[s] of which the defendant is accused in this case shall be found true unless there is some proof of each element of such crime independent of any [confession] [or] [admission] made by [such] defendant outside this trial.
The identity of the person who is alleged to have committed a crime is not an element of the crime [nor is the degree of the crime]. The identity of the perpetrator [or degree of the crime] may be established by [a confession] [or] [an admission].
NOTE: CJ 8.83.4 was deleted by the CALJIC Committee in the 6th Edition (1997).
Original CJ Use Note
This instruction must be given when appropriate sua sponte in a capital case.
PC 190.41, adopted as part of Prop. 115, June 5, 1990 provides: “Notwithstanding PC 190.4 or any other provision of the law, the corpus delicti of a felony-based special circumstance enumerated in paragraph (17) of subd. (a) of PC 190.2 need not be proved independently of a defendant’s extrajudicial statement.”
Since this statutory change appears to lighten the prosecution’s burden, it would appear that this principle will be limited to prospective application.
Original CJ Comment
The corpus delicti rule does not apply to special circumstance findings unless those findings require proof of some crime other than the murder in question. (People v. Howard (88) 44 C3d 375, 413-15 [243 CR 842]; People v.Hamilton (89) 48 C3d 1142, 1175 [259 CR 701].)
