What is the test for corroborating testimony of an accomplice in a sexual assault case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Phipps, E065254 (Cal. App. 2019):
Relevant here, the court must instruct the jury that accomplice testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with distrust. (See People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 635, 682.) A defendant may not be convicted based on the testimony of an accomplice unless the testimony is corroborated by independent evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the crime. ( 1111.) An accomplice is defined as "one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given." (Ibid.) "'A witness is liable to
Page 69
prosecution within the meaning of section 1111 if he or she is a principal in the crime.' [Citation.] A principal includes those who 'directly commit the act constituting the offense' and those who 'aid and abet in its commission.' ( 31.)" (People v. Carrasco (2014) 59 Cal.4th 924, 968.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
