City of Easley v. Portman

490 S.E.2d 613, 327 S.C. 593, 1997 S.C. App. LEXIS 101

• Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina
• Decided: July 21, 1997
• Docket: 2698
• Status: Published

Opinions

GOOLSBY, Judge.

In this driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors (DUI) case, which was prosecuted in the municipal court of the City of Easley, the appellant Steven Dale Portman questions whether the State established the corpus delicti of the offense so as to permit the admission into evidence of his statement to the investigating officer that he drove a motor vehicle and was drunk. The jury found Portman guilty. The circuit court affirmed his conviction. We do so as well.

As a result of a call received approximately thirteen minutes earlier, Officer Ron Winegard arrived at the scene of an accident involving a Ford Bronco. Because the vehicle, which rested against a tree, felt warm to his touch and he could still smell the tires, Winegard concluded the accident had occurred within a few minutes of his arrival at the accident scene. Several people were gathered at the accident scene, including Cynthia Gilstrap, the vehicle’s registered owner, and Portman. Portman, who smelled of alcohol, stood at the back of the vehicle, his head resting against the outside-mounted spare tire and his hands held behind his back.

When Winegard asked Portman what was going on, Port-man responded, “I was driving the vehicle. I’m drunk, take me to jail.” Winegard then asked Portman how much he had had to drink, and Portman answered, “I’ve had four or five— just take me to jail.” Winegard arrested Portman, charging him with DUI.

At trial Winegard testified that Portman’s speech at that time was slurred and that he could determine by the manner in which the Bronco had left the road that its operator had been impaired and that it could not have been driven properly. He believed Portman was under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest. Once at the jail, Portman refused to submit to a breathalyzer examination.

In a criminal case, a conviction cannot be based solely on the defendant’s uncorroborated extra-judicial confession. State v. Williams, 321 S.C. 381, 468 S.E.2d 656 (1996). The State must offer some proof of the corpus delicti of the particular offense for which the defendant is charged to authorize admission of the confession of the defendant. State v. Brown, 103 S.C. 437, 88 S.E. 21 (1916); cf. State v. Edwards, 173 S.C. 161, 175 S.E. 277 (1934) (the rule barring evidence of the defendant’s confession absent proof of the corpus delicti has no application to admissions against interest). Direct evidence of the corpus delicti, however, is not required. State v. Speights, 263 S.C. 127, 208 S.E.2d 43 (1974). Circumstantial evidence will do. Id. If there is any evidence tending to establish the corpus delicti of the offense charged against the accused, then it is the duty of the trial court to submit the question of whether the offense occurred to the jury. Edwards, 173 S.C. at 167, 175 S.E. at 278. Independent proof of the defendant’s identity as the guilty party is not required to prove the corpus delicti. JOHN W. STRONG, McCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 145, at 557 (4th ed. 1997).

In a DUI case, as this court recently pointed out in both State v. Osborne, 321 S.C. 196, 467 S.E.2d 454 (Ct.App.1996), cert. granted, (April 2, 1997), and in State v. Townsend, 321 S.C. 55, 467 S.E.2d 138 (Ct.App.1996), the corpus delicti of the offense of DUI consists of the following three elements: (1) driving a vehicle; (2) within this State; and (3) while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, drugs, or any other substance of like character. As can be readily seen, therefore, evidence showing the accused in a DUI case to be the driver of the vehicle is unnecessary to the determination of whether the State sufficiently proved the corpus delicti. All that the first element requires is that the State sufficiently prove that someone drove the automobile. State v. Stimmel, 800 S.W.2d 156 (Mo.Ct.App.1990); see State v. Knoefler, 563 P.2d 175, 176 (Utah 1977) (DUI case wherein the court noted “the connection of the accused with the crime need not be proven to establish the corpus delicti”). In sum, then, the corpus delicti of DUI consists of evidence that someone operated a motor vehicle in South Carolina while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, drugs, or like substances. See State v. Sheppard, 248 S.C. 464, 466, 150 S.E.2d 916, 917 (1966) (“the act of operating a motor vehicle with impaired faculties is the gravamen” of a DUI offense).

Here, we think the following circumstances constituted sufficient evidence to establish the corpus delicti of the offense of DUI: the Bronco had left the road; it rested up against a tree; the manner in which the Bronco had left the road indicated the driver’s operation of the vehicle had been somehow impaired; Portman rested his head against the vehicle; he smelled of alcohol; he slurred his speech, a characteristic associated with one who is intoxicated; and the investigating officer believed Portman was under the influence of alcohol. The admission, therefore, of Portman’s statement admitting he had been driving the Bronco and was drunk did not constitute error.

Our opinion finds support in the following cases: See Townsend, 321 S.C. at 57-58, 467 S.E.2d at 140-41 (in which the court of appeals held that the corpus delicti of the offense of DUI was established by evidence showing the defendant was found at the scene of a one-car accident, smelled of alcohol, failed a field sobriety test, and was found to have a .21 per cent blood alcohol level when administered a breathalyzer test); State v. White, 311 S.C. 289, 428 S.E.2d 740 (Ct.App.1993) (a felony DUI case where the court of appeals held proof of the corpus delicti was established by evidence showing the defendant, who tested positive for valium and alcohol was found staggering along an interstate highway with a “road rash” on his hand, bleeding, and smelling of alcohol, within a few hundred yards of a single-car accident in which the car had left the road, crossed the median, slid down the road, and gone down an embankment into the woods where it hit a tree, and where the court of appeals upheld the admission into evidence of his statements that he had been the driver of the car, notwithstanding officers found a body lying three or four feet from the driver’s side of the car); cf. State v. Gilliam, 270 S.C. 345, 242 S.E.2d 410 (1978) (in which the supreme court upheld a conviction in a DUI ease where the defendant was found alone on the passenger side of a wrecked automobile that had gone down a highway embankment, the defendant smelled of alcohol and appeared to be under the influence, an open bottle of an alcoholic beverage was found in the car, and the defendant admitted he had been the driver of the car at the time of the accident).¹

The case principally relied on by Portman is State v. Osborne, 321 S.C. 196, 467 S.E.2d 454 (Ct.App.1996), cert. granted, (April 2, 1997). Osborne involved a single-car accident and a challenge to the admission into evidence of the defendant’s confession. He argued the State did not prove the corpus delicti of the offense of DUI. The court of appeals agreed with the defendant, holding the only evidentiary facts offered to establish the corpus delicti were (1) the defendant’s car had been in an accident; (2) the hood of the car was still warm when the officer arrived on the accident scene; (3) the defendant registered .14 per cent on the breathalyzer three hours after the accident; and (4) the defendant tried to file a false stolen-vehicle report.

Osborne, however, does not help Portman for the following reasons. In contrast to the present case, the investigating officer in Osborne did not find anyone drunk at or near the wrecked vehicle. Moreover, although the vehicle had been in an accident, the officer did not testify he had any reason to believe the accident had resulted from faulty driving. The officer left the scene to search for the defendant and did not locate him until two and one-half hours later, when the defendant was discovered visibly intoxicated at a place called the Hot Spot. This court concluded a guilty verdict on the evidence presented would require the fact finder to “impermissibly speculate as to facts not in existence.” Osborne, 321 S.C. at 196, 467 S.E.2d at 457. In the present case, Officer Winegard’s testimony about his observations of the wrecked vehicle, the accident scene, and Portman’s behavior sufficiently established the existence of facts extrinsic to any inculpatory statements by Portman to support a guilty verdict.

AFFIRMED.

ANDERSON, J., concurs in result only in a separate opinion. HOWELL, C.J., dissents in a separate opinion.

1 . Two cases from other jurisdictions with very similar fact patterns support our holding: See State v. Douglas, 102 N.H. 525, 162 A.2d 159 (1960) (DUI case in which the evidence showed a police officer went to the scene of a one-vehicle accident, found a vehicle off the highway against a telephone pole, saw a number of people standing around the scene, including the defendant and a man named Lachenal, asked who was driving and the defendant told the officer it was he while Lachenal said nothing, and determined the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and in which the court held the evidence established the corpus delicti, notwithstanding Lachenal testified at trial he was the operator of the vehicle at the time of the accident); State v. Stimmel, 800 S.W.2d 156 (Mo.Ct.App.1990) (DUI case in which the evidence showed a trooper arrived on the scene of a one-vehicle accident, saw a vehicle at the edge of the westbound lane facing eastward with its rear end in the median and tire tracks leading from the eastbound lane, determined the vehicle's driver was heading eastbound when the vehicle left that lane, traveled into the median, and came to a stop, observed the defendant standing next to the car while two other men, who shortly left in separate vehicles, stood off to one side, noticed the defendant smelled of alcohol and his face was flushed and speech slurred, and was told by the defendant he was the driver of the car and in which the court held the circumstantial evidence established the corpus delicti).