CALCRIM No. 335

Accomplice

If the crime[s] of <insert charged crime[s]> (was/were)

committed, then <insert name[s] of witness[es]> (was/were)

[an] accomplice[s] to (that/those) crime[s].

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

based on the (statement/ [or] testimony) of an accomplice 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, and it does not need to support every fact (mentioned by the

accomplice in the statement/ [or] about which the witness 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, August 2012, February 2016,

March 2019, March 2023