When a witness gives evidence that incriminating statements should not be considered as evidence by a jury, when the witness is a codefendant, what should the court say?

The Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 335 further specify: "When the witness is a codefendant whose testimony includes incriminating statements, the court should not instruct that the witness is an accomplice as a matter of law. (People v. Hill (1967) 66 Cal.2d 536, 555.) Instead, the court should give CALCRIM No. 334... informing the jury that it must decide whether the testifying codefendant is an accomplice. In addition, the court should instruct that when the jury considers this testimony as it relates to the testifying codefendant's defense, the jury should evaluate the testimony using the general rules of credibility, but if the jury considers testimony as incriminating evidence against the non-testifying codefendant, the testimony must be corroborated and should be viewed with caution. (See People v. Coffman and Marlow [, supra] 34 Cal.4th [at p.] 105.)"¹¹ (Bench Notes to CALCRIM No. 335, supra, p. 19.) The Attorney General contends the Bench Notes are incorrect because they are based upon People v. Hill, which includes

Page 10