Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that RCW 10.58.035 is constitutional and modifies the corpus delicti rule only for purposes of admitting a defendant's statement when the alleged victim is unavailable to testify. The statute does not eliminate the requirement that independent evidence establish the elements of the charged offense for purposes of conviction. Because the State conceded that no evidence other than Dow's statement existed, and the statement was exculpatory, the court affirmed dismissal of the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether RCW 10.58.035, which permits admission of a defendant's statement when the alleged victim is dead or incompetent and substantial independent evidence tends to establish trustworthiness, violates federal due process or otherwise impermissibly alters the corpus delicti doctrine.
- Whether the State could proceed with the prosecution when Dow's statement was the only evidence and was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti or every element of the charged crime.
Holdings
- RCW 10.58.035 is constitutional because the corpus delicti rule and its corroboration requirement are judicially created rather than constitutionally mandated, and the statute does not violate federal due process.
- RCW 10.58.035 modifies the corpus delicti rule only as to admissibility; it does not eliminate the independent-evidence requirement for proving the corpus delicti and supporting a conviction.
- The State could not proceed because Dow's statement was the only evidence, was exculpatory, and could not establish the corpus delicti or support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key quotations
“It does not, however, permit a defendant's confession to be the sole evidence used to support a conviction.” (227 P.3d at 1281)
“Considering RCW 10.58.035's plain language, we hold that any departure from the traditional corpus delicti rule under RCW 10.58.035 pertains only to admissibility and not to the sufficiency of evidence required to support a conviction.” (227 P.3d at 1282)
“The statement "I did not commit the crime" cannot support a conviction for the crime without something more.” (227 P.3d at 1283)
Factual background
The State charged Keith Ian Dow with first degree child molestation involving a three-year-old child. By trial, the child was four, but the trial court found her incompetent to testify, and the State conceded that her statements to others were inadmissible. Dow's recorded police statement was the only evidence available to the State; the trial court found it exculpatory and insufficient to establish the charged offense.
Procedural history
The State conceded that it had no evidence independent of Dow's police statement because the alleged victim was incompetent and her statements were inadmissible. The trial court dismissed the case on constitutional corpus delicti grounds. The Court of Appeals held the statute constitutional but remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held the statute constitutional, concluded that the record established the State lacked sufficient evidence to proceed, and affirmed dismissal.
Remand instructions
None. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' remand and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the State's case.