Return to CALJIC Part 5-8 – Contents
F 8.83.3a
Accomplice Corroboration: Applicability To Statements And Testimony
*For the word “testimony” in CJ 8.83.3 (lines 3 and 4), substitute:
… [testimony] [and] [out-of-court statement[s]] …
Points and Authorities
When the prosecution relies only on the in-court testimony of an accomplice CALJIC’s use of the term “testimony” is adequate.
When the prosecution relies upon out-of-court statements “the trial court should substitute the word ‘statement[s]’ for ‘testimony’ …” (People v. Andrews (89) 49 C3d 200, 215, fn 11 [260 CR 583].)
When the prosecution relies upon both out-of-court statements and in-court testimony further modification is appropriate to make it clear that the corroboration rule applies to both.
Improper or inadequate instruction upon witness credibility implicates the defendant’s state (Art. I § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. [See FORECITE PG VII.]
Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon matters relating to proof of any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. [See generally, FORECITE PG VII.]
NOTES: For additional corroboration material see FORECITE F 3.10 et seq.
(See FORECITE F 3.11a.)
