Miranda

In this appeal defendant challenges his conviction for the aggravated offense of transportation of a controlled substance for sale *101 from one county to another noncontiguous county within the state as in violation of the corpus delicti rule. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (b).) 1 ,

The corpus delicti rule precludes conviction where the corpus of the offense has been established on the basis of a defendant’s uncorroborated statements. The corpus includes every element of the offense necessary to show “the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause.” (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 [ 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ] (Alvarez).) The corpus does not include the identity of the perpetrator, the degree of the crime, or the enhancement of the penalty for the offense. In the latter cases the corpus of the underlying offense has been established by evidence apart from the defendant’s statements and satisfies the policy of the law that “one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened.” (Id. at p. 1169.)

In this case the underlying offense of count 3 is the…

I concur in the judgment and in parts II through VI of the majority opinion.

I concur in the result reached in part I, dealing with the corpus delicti rule, but I respectfully disagree with the majority’s analysis. The majority reason that the corpus delicti rule requires independent evidence to establish every element of an offense, but transportation between noncontiguous counties is not an element of the offense.

My argument is the reverse: I think transportation between noncontiguous counties is an element of the offense defined by Health and Safety Code section 11379, subdivisions (a) and (b), 1 but I do not think current California law requires independent proof of every element of a crime to satisfy the corpus delicti rule. Rather, I think it is sufficient for independent evidence to show that some crime was committed. In this case, I do not have to decide whether proof of a misdemeanor would suffice, because here the evidence showed commission of the crime of felony transportation of a controlled substance.

The first question is whether transportation between noncontiguous counties is an element of the offense of which defendant was convicted.

The majority argue that…

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

BLEASE, Acting P.J.

In this appeal the defendant challenges his conviction for the aggravated offense of transportation of a controlled substance for sale from one county to another noncontiguous county within the state as in violation of the corpus delicti rule. (Health and Saf.Code, § 11379, subd. (b).) [1] , [2]

The corpus delicti rule precludes conviction where the corpus of the offense has been established on the basis of a defendant's uncorroborated statements. The corpus includes every element of the offense necessary to show "the fact of injury, loss, or harm, and the existence of a criminal agency as its cause." ( People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1168 , 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 903 , 46 P.3d 372 ( Alvarez ).) The corpus does not include the identity of the perpetrator, the degree of the crime, or the enhancement of the penalty for the offense. In the latter cases the corpus of the underlying offense has been established by evidence apart from the defendant's statements and satisfies the policy of the law that "one will not be falsely convicted, by his or her untested words alone, of a crime that never happened." ( Id. at p. 1169,…