Reevaluation of the California Corpus Delicti Rule: A Response to the Invitation of Proposition 8

Abstract

Courts throughout the United States have long recognized the importance of protecting criminal defendants from convictions based on unreliable extrajudicial confessions. This Comment demonstrates that the corpus delicti rule, as applied in California, does not effectively serve that goal. The author argues that the rule itself is inefficient and subject to abuse by defense counsel, and that California courts have interpreted the rule in such a way as to destroy its protective value. The author then analyzes the corpus delicti rule in light of section 28(d), the Right to Truth-inEvidence provision added to the California Constitution in 1982 by voter initiative. The author concludes that section 28(d) abrogated the corpus delicti rule and that the California Legislature should seize upon this opportunity to clarify the state policy regarding extrajudicial confession evidence by adopting a flexible confession corroboration rule similar to that of the federal courts.