Vehicle crashes are an obvious risk of impaired driving. Thus, it is not unusual for impaired driving prosecutions to follow post-crash investigations, which typically include questioning of the suspected driver. When the State prosecutes impaired driving cases that follow certain types of crashes—namely single car crashes to which there are no witnesses other than the driver—it frequently encounters arguments from the defendant that the rule of corpus delicti renders the State’s evidence insufficient to convict.
My colleague Jessie Smith wrote here about the rule of corpus delicti, which traditionally required evidence independent of a defendant’s confession to establish the corpus delicti of a crime, a term defined to include proof of injury or loss and proof of criminal agency. The rule has evolved in North Carolina to permit the State, in noncapital cases, to establish a defendant’s guilt based on a sufficiently corroborated confession, even absent independent proof of the corpus delicti. In noncapital cases, such as impaired driving, a defendant’s confession may establish his guilt if supported by substantial independent evidence tending to establish the trustworthiness of the confession, including facts that the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime. State v. Parker, 315 N.C. 222, 236 (1985). When there is no independent proof of the crime, strong corroboration of essential facts and circumstances in the confession is required. Id. Nevertheless, it is rare for the State in an impaired driving case to rely solely on the defendant’s confession. Instead, the State typically relies on the defendant’s statements as proof of some element of the crime (for example, driving) and produces independent evidence of the corpus delicti—as well as the remaining statutory elements.
North Carolina’s appellate courts have applied the corpus delicti rule in the following impaired driving cases, concluding in each that the State’s evidence was sufficient to survive the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
- State v. Trexler, 316 N.C. 528, 533 (1986).
- State v. Highsmith, 173 N.C. App. 600 (2005).
- State v. Cruz, 173 N.C. App. 689 (2005).
- State v. Foye, ___ N.C. App. ___, 725 S.E.2d 73 (2012).
- State v. Morvay, 731 S.E.2d 276 (N.C. App. August 21, 2012) (unpublished).
Public Officials - Courts and Judicial Administration Roles
Topics - Courts and Judicial Administration