The opinion
Judge Martin
dissenting.
I would vote to sustain defendant’s conviction of impaired driving. “The corpus delicti rule is based on the hesitancy of the law to accept, without adequate corroboration, the extrajudicial confession of a defendant and to avoid convicting a person, solely out of his own mouth, of a crime that was never committed or was committed by someone else.” State v. Franklin, 308 N.C. 682, 693 , 304 S.E. 2d 579, 586 (1983) (emphasis added). I believe that the defendant’s statement was sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence so as to establish that it was trustworthy and, therefore, to permit the State to prove, through the statement, the element of defendant’s operation of the automobile.
The State’s evidence showed that while the investigating officer was at the accident scene on Stradley Mountain Road, the defendant arrived there with his father, approached the officer, and stated that the overturned automobile was his and that he had been the driver. He told the officer that he had been to a party further up Stradley Mountain Road and that after the accident, he had gone home. Only one person exited the automobile after it overturned. The State’s proof regarding the location of the accident is corroborative of the defendant’s statement as to his activities prior thereto, and, although differing inferences may be drawn from the fact that defendant’s father came to the scene with defendant, that fact lends credence to defendant’s statement that he had gone to his home after the accident and had returned to the scene. Circumstantial proof of defendant’s impairment at the time of driving, and his blood alcohol level at a relevant time thereafter, is supplied by the officer’s description of defendant’s intoxicated condition at the scene and the results of the subsequent breathalyzer test. The circumstances in corroboration of defendant’s statement and the independent proof of his impairment are sufficient to remove any reasonable concern that defendant might be convicted, through his unsolicited admission, of an offense which had not been committed, or had been committed by someone else.
Evidence very similar to that in the case sub judice has been held sufficient to overrule a motion for dismissal. In State v. *19 Snead, 295 N.C. 615 , 247 S.E. 2d 893 (1978), the State’s evidence showed that the investigating highway patrolman arrived at the scene of a one-car accident and found several people milling around the automobile. Snead told the officer that he was the driver of the wrecked car. The officer, being of the opinion that Snead was intoxicated, arrested him and a subsequent breathalyzer test indicated that defendant’s blood alcohol content was .21%. Though the corpus delicti rule was not discussed, the Supreme Court held the evidence sufficient to warrant denial of Snead’s motion for non-suit. The State’s evidence in this case was likewise sufficient to overrule Trexler’s motion for dismissal.