State v. Curlew: Assessing the Sufficiency of Evidence Under the Corpus Delicti Rule

In State v. Curlew, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, reversed a conviction for unlawful sexual contact. The court predicated reversal upon a reaffirmation of both the substantive aspect and the evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule. The substantive aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires the state "to produce, exclusive of any confession or admission by the defendant, such credible evidence as will create a substantial belief that the crime charged has been committed by some person." The evidentiary aspect of the corpus delicti rule requires proof of the corpus delicti prior to the introduction of the defendant's statements into evidence, thereby insuring that a defendant's statements are not introduced prior to independent proof of the corpus delicti. Based on these requirements, the court concluded that the state had failed to establish a touching of the genitals through evidence independent of the defendant's admission and therefore reversed the conviction. The corpus delicti rule has been in force in Maine since 1951. Curlew, however, highlights the adverse impact that a highly technical application of the corpus delicti rule may have on the state's ability to prosecute a case based upon all the otherwise admissible evidence. Instead of reviewing all the evidence adduced at trial under a sufficiency of the evidence approach, the reviewing court under a corpus delicti analysis is precluded from examining statements made by the accused. Thus, the practical effect of Maine's corpus delicti rule, as interpreted by Curlew, is to eliminate the probative value of such statements.