CALCRIM No. 707

Corroborated—Dispute Whether Witness Is Accomplice (Pen.

Code, § 1111)

In order to prove the special circumstance[s] of <insert

special circumstance[s] requiring proof of additional crime>, the People

must prove that the defendant committed <insert crime[s]

(other than murder) that must be proved>. The People have presented the

(statement[s]/ [or] testimony) of <insert name[s] of

witness[es]> on this issue.

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

<insert name[s] of witness[es]> on the question of whether

the special circumstance[s] (was/were) proved, you must decide whether

(he/she/they) (was/were) [an] accomplice[s]. A person is an accomplice if

he or she is subject to prosecution for the identical offense alleged

against the defendant. Someone is subject to prosecution if he or she

personally committed the offense or if:

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

committed the offense;

AND

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

encourage, or instigate the commission of the offense[,]/ [or]

participate in a criminal conspiracy to commit the offense).

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

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

prosecution for the identical offense.

[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 (the person/those) who commit[s] 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 find that <insert name[s] of witness[es]> (was/were)

[an] accomplice[s], then you may not find that the special

circumstance[s] of <insert special circumstance[s] requiring

proof of additional crime> (is/are) true based on (his/her/their)

(statement[s]/ [or] testimony) alone. Y ou may use the (statement[s]/ [or]

testimony) of an accomplice to find the special circumstance true only if:

1. The accomplice’s (statement[s]/ [and] testimony) (is/are)

supported by other evidence that you believe;

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

(statement[s]/ [and] testimony);

AND

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

commission of <insert crime[s] (other than murder)

that must be proved>.

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

enough, by itself, to prove that the defendant committed

<insert crime[s] (other than murder) that must be proved>, and it does not

need to support every fact (mentioned by the witness 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

<insert crime[s] (other than murder) that must be proved>.

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

accomplice cannot be provided by the (statement[s]/ [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 light of all the other evidence.

If you decide that <insert name[s] of witness[es]> (was/

were) not [an] accomplice[s], you should evaluate (his/her/their)

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

New January 2006; Revised March 2019

CALCRIM No. 707 HOMICIDE