accomplice testimony instruction in Minnesota

2019Because there is a qualitative difference between a limiting instruction and an accomplice-testimony instruction, my analysis is not inconsistent with State v. Strommen , 648 N.W.2d 681 , 689 (Minn. 2002) ("[T]he duty to instruct on accomplice testimony remains regardless of whether counsel for the defendant requests the instruction."), or State v. Barrientos-Quintana , 787 N.W.2d 603 , 610 (Minn. 2010) (same).

2012See Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 ; see also Barrientos-Quintana, 787 N.W.2d at 612 (concluding under a plain error analysis that the district court erred by declining an accomplice testimony instruction).

2019Because there is a qualitative difference between a limiting instruction and an accomplice-testimony instruction, my analysis is not inconsistent with State v. Strommen , 648 N.W.2d 681 , 689 (Minn. 2002) ("[T]he duty to instruct on accomplice testimony remains regardless of whether counsel for the defendant requests the instruction."), or State v. Barrientos-Quintana , 787 N.W.2d 603 , 610 (Minn. 2010) (same).

2004Further, if the state presents the testimony of either or both Robinson or Young in the new trial, our decision in State v. Strommen requires that the accomplice testimony instruction be given. 648 N.W.2d 681, 689 (Minn.2002). 6 Reversed and remanded. 1 .

2019State v. Lee , 683 N.W.2d 309 , 316 n.6 (Minn. 2004).

2007The omission of an accomplice-testimony jury instruction is reviewed under this court’s harmless-error analysis. 8 State v. Lee, 683 N.W.2d 309, 316 (Minn.2004); see also Minn. R.Crim.

2012See Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 ; see also Barrientos-Quintana, 787 N.W.2d at 612 (concluding under a plain error analysis that the district court erred by declining an accomplice testimony instruction).

2008Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988).

2024But these definitions are not in the context of courtroom testimony. 15 In State v. Henderson, the supreme court also declined to decide the meaning of “testimony,” as used in section 634.04, when Henderson challenged the district court’s refusal to give an accomplice-testimony instruction for a witness’s testimony about the out-of-court statements of Henderson’s accomplice. 620 N.W.2d 688, 700-01 (Minn. 2001).

2024The supreme court determined that it “need not decide whether section 634.04 applies to out-of-court statements by an accomplice” because “[e]ven if the court erred in not giving the instruction . . . any error is harmless.” Id. at 701 . 31 during a court proceeding.” Id. (emphasis added).

2014Clark, 755 N.W.2d at 251 .

2009We have observed that “the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving *581 dishonesty by accomplice witnesses.” State v. Clark, 755 N.W.2d 241, 253 (Minn.2008).

2016See State v. Matthews, 779 N.W.2d 543, 548 (Minn. 2010).

2014Accordingly, the district court’s failure to give the accomplice-testimony instruction did not affect Matlock’s substantial rights. 2 The state argues that “it is also relevant that the jury was properly instructed on evaluating witness credibility.” See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 2007) (noting that an “adequate general instruction on the credibility of witnesses” may mitigate the prejudicial effect of the district court’s failure to give an accomplice-testimony instruction).

2014Accordingly, the district court’s failure to give the accomplice-testimony instruction did not affect Matlock’s substantial rights. 2 The state argues that “it is also relevant that the jury was properly instructed on evaluating witness credibility.” See State v. Jackson, 726 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Minn. 2007) (noting that an “adequate general instruction on the credibility of witnesses” may mitigate the prejudicial effect of the district court’s failure to give an accomplice-testimony instruction).

2010See, e.g., Pendleton, 759 N.W.2d at 908 (holding that where a witness “could potentially be seen as an accomplice,” but the question of knowing participation was “subject to different interpretations,” the court correctly gave the accomplice testimony instruction and allowed the jury to decide whether the witness was an accomplice); Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 582 .

2010See, e.g., Pendleton, 759 N.W.2d at 908 (holding that where a witness "could potentially be seen as an accomplice," but the question of knowing participation was "subject to different interpretations," the court correctly gave the accomplice testimony instruction and allowed the jury to decide whether the witness was an accomplice); Reed, 737 N.W.2d at 582 .

2008This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964).

2008This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964).

2008Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice's testimony "when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice's testimony," Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988).

2008Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988).

2008Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988).

2008Because the accomplice testimony rule is based on the fear of self-serving dishonesty by accomplice witnesses, see Shoop, 441 N.W.2d at 479 , we have long held that evidence is sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony “when it is weighty enough to restore confidence in the truth of the accomplice’s testimony,” Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; accord State v. Scruggs, 421 N.W.2d 707, 713 (Minn.1988).

2008This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964).

2008This burden is met when the defendant is linked to the alleged crime by corroborating evidence that “in some substantial degree tends to affirm the truth of [the accomplice’s] testimony and to point to the guilt of the defendant.” State v. Rasmussen, 241 Minn. 310, 313 , 63 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1954); accord Sorg, 275 Minn. at 5 , 144 N.W.2d at 786 ; State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 398 , 127 N.W.2d 534, 538 (1964).