People v. Rodriguez CA4/3

Filed 5/28/15 P. v. Rodriguez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, G050512 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 12CF0355) v. OPINION ROBERT RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Reversed. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney; Brian F. Fitzpatrick, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Frank S. Davis, Alternate Defender; Derek J. Bercher, Assistant Alternate Defender; Randy K. Ladisky and Antony C. Ufland, Deputy Alternate Defenders. * * * The People appeal from the trial court’s ruling granting defendant Robert Rodriguez’s pretrial motion (Pen. Code, § 995; all further statutory citations are to this

code) to dismiss attempted murder (§§ 664, 187) and assault with a machine gun (§ 245, subd. (a)(3)) charges because the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing did not satisfy the corpus delicti rule. The corpus delicti rule requires independent evidence that a criminal act has been committed, apart from the defendant’s statements. The rule ensures that a crime has actually occurred and the defendant does not face conviction based on a false confession. The rule is neither constitutional nor statutory, but instead traces its remarkable common law origin back to Perry’s Case (1660) 14 How. St. Tr. 1311. There, although the master’s body had not been found, a servant, his mother and brother were convicted and hanged for murder based on the servant’s false statements, which he recanted. Two years later the master returned, quite obviously alive, explaining that he had been abducted by pirates and sold into slavery in the Ottoman Empire. Thereafter, courts developed the corpus delicti rule. (See Note, Proof of the Corpus Delicti Aliunde the Defendant’s Confession (1955) 103 U. Pa. L.Rev. 638, 639 [“This and similar cases led the British courts to question the sufficiency of confessions to prove that a crime had been committed”].) Here, the People argue the corpus delicti rule should not apply at the preliminary hearing, but we and other courts have unanimously rejected that proposition, and the People offer no reason to revisit the issue. (People v. Herrera (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 1191 (Herrera); see People v. Powers-Monachello (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 400, 406-408; Rayyis v. Superior Court (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 138, 144-149.) The People also contend the evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing met the low threshold required to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. As we explain, we agree and therefore reverse the trial court’s ruling.