CALCRIM No. 336

View the (statement/ [or] testimony) of an in-custody informant against

the defendant with caution and close scrutiny. In evaluating such (a

statement/ [or] testimony), you should consider the extent to which it

may have been influenced by the receipt of, or expectation of, any

benefits. This does not mean that you may arbitrarily disregard such

(statement/ [or] testimony), but you should give it the weight to which

you find it to be entitled in the light of all the evidence in the case.

<Give the following paragraph if the issue of whether a witness was an in -

custody informant is in dispute>

[An in-custody informant is someone [, other than (a/an) (codefendant[,]/

[or] percipient witness[,]/ [or] accomplice[,]/ [or] coconspirator,)] whose

(statement/ [or] testimony) is based on [a] statement[s] the defendant

allegedly made while both the defendant and the informant were held

within a correctional institution. If you decide that a (declarant/ [or]

witness) was not an in-custody informant, then you should evaluate his

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

witness.]

<Give the first bracketed phrase if the issue of whether a witness was an

in-custody informant is in dispute>

[If you decide that a (declarant/ [or] witness) was an in-custody

informant, then] (Y ou/you) may not convict the defendant of

<insert charged crime[s]> based on the (statement/ [or]

testimony) of that in-custody informant alone. [Nor may you find a

special circumstance true/ [or] use evidence in aggravation based on the

(statement/ [or] testimony) of that in-custody informant alone.]

Y ou may use the (statement/ [or] testimony) of an in-custody informant

against the defendant only if:

1. The (statement/ [or] testimony) is supported by other evidence

that you believe;

2. That supporting evidence is independent of the (statement/ [or]

testimony);

AND

3. That supporting evidence connects the defendant to the

commission of the crime[s] [or to the special circumstance/ [or] to

evidence in aggravation]. The supporting evidence is not sufficient

if it merely shows that the charged crime was committed [or

proves the existence of a special circumstance/ [or] evidence in

aggravation].

This supporting evidence requirement does not apply where the

testimony of an in-custody informant is offered for any purpose other

than proving (guilt/ [or] a special circumstance/evidence in aggravation).

[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.]

[Do not use the (statement/ [or] testimony) of an in-custody informant to

support the (statement/ [or] testimony) of another in-custody informant

unless you are convinced that <insert name of party calling

in-custody informant as witness> has proven it is more likely than not that

the in-custody informant has not communicated with another in-custody

informant on the subject of the testimony.]

[A percipient witness is someone who personally perceived the matter

that he or she testified about.]

<Insert the name of the in-custody informant if his or her statement is not in

dispute>

[<insert name of witness> is an in-custody informant.]

[<insert name of institution> is a correctional institution.]

New January 2006; Revised August 2012, February 2016, October 2021, March