P. v. Sult
Following a jury trial, appellant Harry Brian Sult was convicted of possession of methamphetamine for sale. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on four years of probation, with 180 days in county jail. This appeal followed.
Appellant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it failed to instruct sua sponte that a conviction could not be based solely on his out-of-court statements. (CALCRIM No. 359.) The instruction sets forth the corpus delicti rule, which requires proof that a crime occurred, apart from the defendants extrajudicial statements. (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1169.) Such an instruction must be given sua sponte, where the prosecution relies in part on such statements. (Id. atpp.1170, 1178, 1180.) Here, as in Alvarez, the absence of the instruction was harmless, based on the overwhelming evidence of the corpus delicti, through the methamphetamine and drug packaging materials found in appellants bedroom and the adjacent garage, and the expert testimony regarding possession of the drug for sale. (Id. at p. 1181; People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.). The judgment is affirmed.
Comments on P. v. Sult