258 P.3d 866
Alaska Ct. App.2011Background
- Langevin was convicted of driving under the influence based largely on his police confession.
- Alaska law recognizes corpus delicti as corroboration of a defendant’s confession, not mere independent proof of the act.
- The district court denied a defense motion to acquit or to instruct on corpus delicti after the State rested.
- Langevin’s defense argued the State failed to present substantial independent evidence linking the crime to Langevin.
- The trial court admitted Langevin’s confession under the evidentiary foundation approach, and the jury convicted.
- The court of appeals ultimately held that Alaska follows the evidentiary foundation approach and reversed for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who decides corpus delicti under Alaska law? | Langevin argues jury should decide. | State argues judge decides. | The trial judge decides. |
| Did the State satisfy corpus delicti in Langevin? | State provided insufficient independent corroboration. | Confession plus some corroboration may suffice. | State failed to satisfy corpus delicti. |
| If corpus delicti is not satisfied but confession remains, is remedy dismissal or retrial? | Dismissal is proper when corpus delicti is not met. | Retrial permissible if error can be cured. | Remedy is a new trial, not outright dismissal. |
| What is Langevin’s remedy on appeal after erroneous corpus delicti ruling? | New trial should be granted. | Legal sufficiency considered with all evidence. | New trial; not judgment of acquittal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 502 P.2d 440 (Alaska 1972) (corroboration need not prove the crime independently; substantial independent evidence corroborates confession)
- Dodds v. State, 997 P.2d 536 (Alaska App.2000) (controls whether corpus delicti is an evidentiary foundation issue or an implicit element)
- McKenzie v. State, 776 P.2d 351 (Alaska App.1989) ( State's independent evidence may corroborate confession and reflect recent driving)
- Drumbarger v. State, 716 P.2d 6 (Alaska App.1986) (illustrates corroboration standard under Armstrong)
- Houston-Hult v. State, 843 P.2d 1262 (Alaska App.1992) (discusses remedy when proper corpus delicti ruling is corrected on appeal)
- Perovich v. United States, 205 U.S. 86 (1907) (historical context for corpus delicti principles)