People v. LaRosa

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court abandoned the corpus delicti rule, which required independent evidence that a crime occurred before a confession could sustain a conviction, and replaced it with a trustworthiness standard. The court held that corroborating evidence must establish the confession's reliability through facts corroborating the confession, facts establishing the crime that corroborate the confession, or circumstances showing the confession was trustworthy. Because the corpus delicti rule had been applied as a substantive criminal-law principle for more than a century, the court held that applying the new standard to LaRosa would violate his due process right to fair warning and affirmed reversal of his convictions.

Holdings

1. Colorado abandons the corpus delicti rule because sound reasons exist to depart from it. The rule was originally erroneous, had become unsound in light of changed legal conditions, and could work injustice by barring convictions in cases involving vulnerable victims or crimes without tangible injuries.
2. Colorado adopts the trustworthiness standard. The prosecution must present corroborating evidence that proves the confession is trustworthy or reliable, rather than independent evidence establishing the corpus delicti.
3. A trial court must find corroboration from one or more of three evidentiary sources: facts corroborating facts contained in the confession; facts establishing the crime that corroborate facts contained in the confession; or facts surrounding the making of the confession that demonstrate its trustworthiness or reliability.
4. The trustworthiness standard could not constitutionally be applied to LaRosa because he lacked fair warning that Colorado would abandon the corpus delicti rule and replace it with a different substantive corroboration requirement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Colorado should abandon the judicially created corpus delicti rule requiring evidence independent of a defendant's confession to establish that a crime occurred.
2. If the corpus delicti rule were abandoned, what corroboration requirement should replace it.
3. Whether retroactive application of the newly adopted trustworthiness standard would violate LaRosa's due process right to fair warning.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient under the corpus delicti rule to sustain LaRosa's convictions.

Disposition

affirmed