CALCRIM No. 334

Whether Witness Is Accomplice

Before you may consider the (statement/[or] testimony) of

<insert name[s] of witness[es]> as evidence against (the

defendant/ <insert names of defendants> ) [regarding the

crime[s] of <insert name[s] of crime[s] if corroboration only

required for some crime[s]>], you must decide whether

<insert name[s] of witness[es>) (was/were) [an] accomplice[s] [to (that/

those) crime[s]]. A person is an accomplice if he or she is subject to

prosecution for the identical crime charged against the defendant.

Someone is subject to prosecution if:

1. He or she personally committed the crime;

OR

2. He or she knew of the criminal purpose of the person who

committed the crime;

AND

3. He or she intended to, and did in fact, (aid, facilitate, promote,

encourage, or instigate the commission of the crime[;]/[or]

participate in a criminal conspiracy to commit the crime).

[The burden is on the defendant to prove that it is more likely than not

that <insert name[s] of witness[es]> (was/were) [an]

accomplice[s].]

[An accomplice does not need to be present when the crime is

committed. On the other hand, a person is not an accomplice just

because he or she is present at the scene of a crime, even if he or she

knows that a crime will be committed or is being committed and does

nothing to stop it.]

[A person who lacks criminal intent but who pretends to join in a crime

only to detect or prosecute those who commit that crime is not an

accomplice.]

[A person may be an accomplice even if he or she is not actually

prosecuted for the crime.]

[Y ou may not conclude that a child under 14 years old was an

accomplice unless you also decide that when the child acted, (he/she)

understood:

1. The nature and effect of the criminal conduct;

2. That the conduct was wrongful and forbidden;

AND

3. That (he/she) could be punished for participating in the conduct.]

If you decide that a (declarant/[or] witness) was not an accomplice, then

supporting evidence is not required and you should evaluate his or her

(statement/[or] testimony) as you would that of any other witness.

If you decide that a (declarant/[or] witness) was an accomplice, then you

may not convict the defendant of <insert charged crime[s]>

based on his or her (statement/[or] testimony) alone. Y ou may use (a

statement/[or] testimony) of an accomplice that tends to incriminate the

defendant to convict the defendant only if:

1. The accomplice’s (statement/[or] testimony) is supported by other

evidence that you believe;

2. That supporting evidence is independent of the accomplice’s

(statement/[or] testimony);

AND

3. That supporting evidence tends to connect the defendant to the

commission of the crime[s].

Supporting evidence, however, may be slight. It does not need to be

enough, by itself, to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charged

crime[s], and it does not need to support every fact (mentioned by the

accomplice in the statement/[or] about which the accomplice testified).

On the other hand, it is not enough if the supporting evidence merely

shows that a crime was committed or the circumstances of its

commission. The supporting evidence must tend to connect the defendant

to the commission of the crime.

[The evidence needed to support the (statement/[or] testimony) of one

accomplice cannot be provided by the (statement/[or] testimony) of

another accomplice.]

Any (statement/[or] testimony) of an accomplice that tends to

incriminate the defendant should be viewed with caution. Y ou may not,

however, arbitrarily disregard it. Y ou should give that (statement/[or]

testimony) the weight you think it deserves after examining it with care

and caution and in the light of all the other evidence.

New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2010, April 2011, February 2016,

March 2019, April 2020, September 2023