 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gamble v. State1/26/2005
per Randall's testimony, and the accompanying video tape, established that Gamble was an occupant of Sowle's car when it was stopped, that Gamble was obviously intoxicated, and that Gamble was wearing the type of hat described by McComsey. Finally, Gamble stipulated at trial that his license was revoked.
In Alaska, the government's corpus delicti evidence "need not be sufficient, independent of the [defendant's] statements," to establish the occurrence of the crime. Rather, our corpus delicti rule requires the government to "introduce 'substantial independent evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the [defendant's] statement.'"
When the testimony of Sowle, McComsey, and Randall is combined, this evidence is easily sufficient to meet this test. We accordingly uphold Judge Brown's ruling that the State satisfied its corpus delicti obligation.
The State presented sufficient evidence to establish that Gamble did not have permission to drive Sowle's car
A person commits vehicle theft in the first degree by taking another person's car without having any right, or reasonable belief that he had a right, to take the car.
Gamble defended on the ground that he reasonably believed that he had permission to take Sowle's car. He pointed out that he lived with Sowle and had driven her car with her permission in the past. But the State presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Gamble did not have a reasonable belief that he had a right to take Sowle's car. Sowle testified that she had, on two prior occasions, allowed Gamble to drive her car. But she specifically said that on those two occasions, she limited Gamble to driving only the one block to his mother's house. She specifically stated that she never authorized Gamble to take the car without her permission. Sowle did admit to being under the influence of alcohol and morphine on July 25, when Gamble took the car. She conceded that the details of that evening were "hazy." But she specifically stated that she did not give Gamble permission to drive her car that night.
When we look at the testimony in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Gamble did not have any basis to conclude that he had permission to take Sowle's car. We accordingly conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to convict Gamble for vehicle theft in the first degree.
Conclusion
We conclude that the State satisfied the corpus delicti rule. We also conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Gamble committed the offense of vehicle theft in the first degree.
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|