In what circumstances have courts found insufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice in a murder case?

The case is also unlike People v. Robinson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 373. There, evidence established three men confronted the victim, one shooting him with a shotgun and killing him. The only evidence linking the defendant to the crime was his fingerprints found on a disabled car parked nearby with its license plate obscured, his evasive and conflicting replies to questions regarding his whereabouts at the time of the crime, and his denials to the police that he committed the crime. The court found the evidence either alone or in combination insufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony. As to the fingerprints, there was no evidence as to when they were placed in the car. Furthermore, the prosecution presented evidence the defendant claimed he had recently used the car in which his prints were found. Thus, it was equally likely these prints had been placed on the car innocently. (Id. at p. 398.) The court concluded that at best, the fingerprints established the defendant had been in the car at some time prior to the car's discovery and therefore was insufficient to connect the defendant to the crime. (Id. at p. 399.)

As to his conflicting statements regarding his whereabouts over the time period in question, there was only one conflict in his statement and the evidence at most demonstrated he may have been hiding something from the police. (People v. Robinson, supra, 61 Cal.2d at pp. 400-401.) However, there was no evidence to demonstrate this conflicting statement was made to hide his connection to the crime. (Ibid.) Finally, the court found the claimed "admission" was not an adoptive admission at all; rather, it was a

Page 19

denial as to any complicity. (Id. at pp. 401-402.) Consequently, there was insufficient corroboration of the accomplice testimony.

Unlike People v. Robinson, there was more evidence than a shoe print left at the scene of the crime to implicate defendant. While it is true a shoe print could have been made at any time, its proximity to the body coupled with defendant's statement to McSwain that he had killed the person in the home was sufficient to link him to the commission of the crime. Additionally, that defendant related details regarding the location of the body and items within the homeconsistent with the scene of the crime and not publicly knownfurther corroborated his participation. Moreover, the text messages to defendant's mother relaying he "'really did do it'" and "'I'll die before I do life'" can certainly be read as admissions to a crime. This additional corroboration distinguishes this case from People v. Robinson.