corroboration requirement in Virginia

2007As Powell suggests, “‘The purpose of the corroboration rule is to reduce the possibility of punishing a person for a crime which was never, in fact, committed.’” Aldridge, 44 Va. App. at 650 , 606 S.E.2d at 555 (quoting Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 421, 424 , 369 S.E. 2d 212, 214 (1988) (additional citation omitted)).

2007As Powell suggests, “‘The purpose of the corroboration rule is to reduce the possibility of punishing a person for a crime which was never, in fact, committed.’” Aldridge, 44 Va. App. at 650 , 606 S.E.2d at 555 (quoting Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 421, 424 , 369 S.E. 2d 212, 214 (1988) (additional citation omitted)).

2023The Code of Virginia “has never expressly required corroboration to sustain a perjury conviction, [yet] from an early date, our courts have imposed a corroboration requirement.” Keffer v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 545, 547 (1991) (first citing Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. 1025 , 1027 (1876); and then citing Ronald N. Boyce & Rollin M.

2016“While the Code has never expressly required corroboration to sustain a perjury conviction, from an early date, our courts have imposed a corroboration requirement.” Keffer v. Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 545, 547 , 404 S.E.2d 745, 746 (1991).

2025Shumate, 296 Va. at 546-47. “[T]estimony is subject to the corroboration requirement if it is offered by an adverse or interested party and if it presents an essential element that, if not corroborated, would be fatal to the adverse party’s case.” Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 32 (2002).

2025On the other hand, “[i]f the witness is neither ‘adverse’ nor ‘interested,’ the corroboration requirement does not apply.” Id. at ___.

2018In Johnson , we cited the holding in Epes to hold that the 1904 statutory exception continues to operate as an exception to the corroboration requirement under the current Dead Man's Statute because that requirement "applied 'only to that class of witnesses who were made competent for the first time by the Code of 1919, and that, no corroboration is required of those witnesses who were competent before the Code of 1919 became operative, and who did not then require corroboration.' " Id. at 34, 563 S.E.2d 727 (quoting Epes , 135 Va. at 92-93 , 115 S.E. 712 ).

2018In Johnson , we cited the holding in Epes to hold that the 1904 statutory exception continues to operate as an exception to the corroboration requirement under the current Dead Man's Statute because that requirement "applied 'only to that class of witnesses who were made competent for the first time by the Code of 1919, and that, no corroboration is required of those witnesses who were competent before the Code of 1919 became operative, and who did not then require corroboration.' " Id. at 34, 563 S.E.2d 727 (quoting Epes , 135 Va. at 92-93 , 115 S.E. 712 ).

2023An interested party is one, not a party to the record, who is pecuniarily interested in the result of the suit.” Merchants’ Supply Co. v. Hughes’ Ex’rs, 139 Va. 212, 216 (1924). “[T]estimony is subject to the corroboration requirement if it is offered by an adverse or interested party and if it presents an essential element that, if not corroborated, would be fatal to the adverse party’s case.” Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 32 (2002) (citing Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 165-66 (2000)).

2002Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 165-66 , 532 S.E.2d 318, 322-23 (2000); Hereford v. Paytes, 226 Va. 604, 608 , 311 S.E.2d 790, 792 (1984).

2025But, if the corroborating evidence “‘is consistent with a reasonable inference’ that -5- the accused committed the crime to which he has confessed, the Commonwealth need not establish through direct evidence those elements of the crime that are proven by the confession.” Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 145 (2004).

2025Id. (quoting Watkins, 238 Va. at 348 ). “[I]f the facts offered to satisfy the slight corroboration requirement are ‘just as consistent with non-commission of the offense as . . . with its commission,’ then slight corroboration does not exist.” Id. at 75 (second alteration in original) (quoting Phillips v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 207, 212 (1960)).

2023Perkins, Criminal Law 523-24 (3d ed. 1982) (rule is universal requiring two independent witnesses or one witness with corroborating circumstances for perjury conviction)). “[T]he ‘nature of the corroboration’ necessary to substantiate the testimony of a single witness in a perjury prosecution has never been specifically delineated.” Stewart v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 117, 120 (1996).

2023“Corroborating evidence is such evidence as tends to confirm and strengthen the testimony of the witness sought to be corroborated—that is, such as tends to show the truth, or the probability of its truth.” Brooks v. Worthington, 206 Va. 352, 357 (1965) (quoting Varner’s Ex’rs v. White, 149 Va. 177, 185 (1927)).

2023An interested party is one, not a party to the record, who is pecuniarily interested in the result of the suit.” Merchants’ Supply Co. v. Hughes’ Ex’rs, 139 Va. 212, 216 (1924). “[T]estimony is subject to the corroboration requirement if it is offered by an adverse or interested party and if it presents an essential element that, if not corroborated, would be fatal to the adverse party’s case.” Johnson v. Raviotta, 264 Va. 27, 32 (2002) (citing Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 165-66 (2000)).

2023“Corroborating evidence is such evidence as tends to confirm and strengthen the testimony of the witness sought to be corroborated—that is, such as tends to show the truth, or the probability of its truth.” Brooks v. Worthington, 206 Va. 352, 357 (1965) (quoting Varner’s Ex’rs v. White, 149 Va. 177, 185 (1927)).

2016The “well nigh universal” corroboration requirement thus serves as a safeguard to ensure that “the uncorroborated oath of one witness is not enough to establish the falsity of the testimony of the accused.” Hammer v. United States, 271 U.S. 620, 628 (1926).

2014See People v. LaRosa, 293 P.3d 567, 570 (Colo. 2013).

2014See, e.g., Jackson v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 625, 645-46 , 499 S.E.2d 538, 551-52 (1998).

2014See, e.g., Jackson v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 625, 645-46 , 499 S.E.2d 538, 551-52 (1998).

2002Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 165-66 , 532 S.E.2d 318, 322-23 (2000); Hereford v. Paytes, 226 Va. 604, 608 , 311 S.E.2d 790, 792 (1984).

2002Rice v. Charles, 260 Va. 157, 165-66 , 532 S.E.2d 318, 322-23 (2000); Hereford v. Paytes, 226 Va. 604, 608 , 311 S.E.2d 790, 792 (1984).

2000However, when "the commission of the crime has been fully confessed by the accused, only slight corroborative evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti." Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133 , 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984). "'The purpose of the corroboration rule is to reduce the possibility of punishing a person for a crime which was never, in fact, committed.'" Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 421, 424 , 369 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1988) (citation omitted).

2000However, when "the commission of the crime has been fully confessed by the accused, only slight corroborative evidence is necessary to establish the corpus delicti." Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133 , 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984). "'The purpose of the corroboration rule is to reduce the possibility of punishing a person for a crime which was never, in fact, committed.'" Jefferson v. Commonwealth, 6 Va. App. 421, 424 , 369 S.E.2d 212, 214 (1988) (citation omitted).