People v. Musselwhite
954 P.2d 475, 17 Cal. 4th 1216, 98 Daily Journal DAR 4745 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a felony-murder special circumstance, the corpus delicti rule requires independent proof of the underlying felony (e.g., robbery or burglary) but does not require independent proof of the additional element that the killing occurred during the commission of that felony.
Facts:
- On November 30, 1987, Musselwhite entered a video store where he robbed the clerk, Shawn May, at knifepoint.
- Musselwhite bound May with duct tape, then struck her with a hammer and stabbed her in the neck before fleeing; May survived the attack.
- A week later, on December 7, 1987, Musselwhite went to the Cottonwood Apartments and asked the manager, Norma Painter, to show him a model apartment.
- While alone with Painter in the model apartment, Musselwhite attacked her, bound her hands and ankles, and strangled and stabbed her to death.
- A neighbor testified to hearing a woman cry out, "No, no, leave me alone, don’t do that" around the time of the murder.
- After killing Painter, Musselwhite returned to the rental office, took Painter's wallet from her purse, and stole cash and checks from the office desk.
- Three days after Painter's murder, Musselwhite was questioned by police detectives and confessed to killing Painter and robbing the apartment office.
Procedural Posture:
- Musselwhite was charged in the Superior Court with first-degree murder with two special circumstances (murder in the course of a robbery and a burglary), along with several other felonies including attempted murder.
- Musselwhite filed a pretrial motion to suppress his videotaped confessions to police, which the trial court partially denied, allowing his confessions to the murder and attempted murder to be admitted into evidence.
- A jury convicted Musselwhite on all counts, including first-degree murder, and found the special circumstance allegations to be true.
- Following a separate penalty phase trial, the same jury returned a verdict of death.
- The trial court denied Musselwhite's motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the jury's verdicts.
- An automatic direct appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the corpus delicti rule require independent proof, apart from a defendant's extrajudicial statements, that a killing occurred during the commission of an underlying felony in order to establish a felony-murder special circumstance?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No. The corpus delicti rule for a felony-murder special circumstance requires independent proof of the underlying felony itself, but it does not require independent proof that the killing occurred while the defendant was engaged in the commission of that felony. The court reasoned that its prior holding in People v. Mattson required proof of the underlying felony 'pursuant to the general law,' which includes satisfying the corpus delicti rule for that felony. However, proving the underlying felony does not necessitate proving the separate special circumstance element that the killing occurred during the felony. Therefore, the corpus delicti rule applies only to the elements of the underlying felony (e.g., robbery), not to the temporal link between the felony and the murder for special circumstance purposes. A defendant's extrajudicial statements may be used to establish this link.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the corpus delicti rule in capital cases involving felony-murder special circumstances. It limits the requirement for independent evidence to the elements of the underlying felony, making it easier for the prosecution to establish the special circumstance when the primary evidence linking the felony to the killing is the defendant's own confession. This holding prevents the extension of the corpus delicti doctrine to every element of a special circumstance, thereby streamlining the evidentiary burden for the state in such prosecutions. It draws a clear distinction between the proof needed for the 'crime' (the felony) and the proof needed for the 'circumstance' (the killing occurring during the crime).
