State v. OWELICIO
263 P.3d 305
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Midnight August 23, 2007: defendant in passenger seat of a car involved in a blowout; Aaron Atcitty was present and initially claimed he did not drive; no one was in the driver’s seat when officer arrived; defendant admitted she was driving after repeated questioning.
- Officer Harvey observed defendant’s intoxication indicators and later administered sobriety tests; breath test at station showed .20/.19 BAC.
- Video shows defendant entering the car on the passenger side; Atcitty strongly denied driving; only defendant and Atcitty were present near the car.
- Defendant initially admitted driving, later recanted, claiming she lied to protect Atcitty’s job; metropolitan court noted she lied, but trial record included other corroborating evidence.
- Metropolitan court convicted defendant of aggravated DWI after bench trial; district court affirmed; defendant appeals asserting lack of corroboration for her driving admission.
- Court applies modified trustworthiness doctrine to determine if independent corroboration exists and whether corpus delicti is shown without solely relying on admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether corpus delicti established without defendant’s admission | State argues independent evidence shows DWI occurred | Owelicio claims her admission is required to prove corpus delicti | Corpus delicti established independent of admission; not required to rely on admission for DWI. |
| Whether modified trustworthiness applies to DWI driving identity | State asserts doctrine applies to corroborate admission only when corpus delicti at issue | Defense argues doctrine should apply more broadly | Modified trustworthiness doctrine does not apply to identify the driver; corpus delicti already established. |
| Whether there was sufficient corroboration of defendant’s driving admission | State contends evidence corroborates admission | Defendant argues lack of corroboration for driving admission | There was substantial corroboration (evidence of intoxication, location, video, sole driver, BAC) supporting trustworthiness. |
| Whether evidence shows defendant operated the vehicle while intoxicated | State shows admission plus independent evidence of driving | Defendant contests sufficiency of driving evidence | Sufficient evidence; reasonable juror could find she drove while intoxicated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sosa, 2000-NMSC-036 (NMSC 2000) (corpus delicti may be established without identity if independent proof exists)
- State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC-001 (NMSC 2011) (corpus delicti well-supported; identity not essential where independent proof of the crime exists)
- State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966) (corpus delicti rule; confession alone not enough unless corpus delicti established)
- State v. Weisser, 2007-NMCA-015, 141 N.M. 93, 150 P.3d 1043 (NMCA 2007) (adopts modified trustworthiness doctrine; assesses corroboration of confession)
- State v. Duarte, 2004-NMCA-117, 136 N.M. 404, 98 P.3d 1054 (NMCA 2004) (application of modified trustworthiness; limits on relying on confession alone)
- Doe v. State, 94 N.M. 548, 613 P.2d 418 (NM 1980) (limits on corroboration where independent proof lacking)