What is the legal test for a jury to convict a defendant on the evidence of an accomplice who changed the form of the stolen property to a different type of vehicle?

The court charged with respect to accomplice testimony as follows: "such testimony is to be given close and searching scrutiny and is to be received with caution and weighed with great care. You should not convict a defendant on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice unless you believe the unsupported testimony beyond all reasonable doubt." Far from being inadequate, this charge was more favorable to appellants than was required. See United States v. Mattio, 388 F.2d 368 (2d Cir. 1968).

The court did not err in instructing the jury that a change in the form of the stolen property was not fatal in a prosecution for interstate transportation

[401 F.2d 673]

under 18 U.S.C. 2314. See United States v. Walker, 176 F.2d 564, 566 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 338 U.S. 891, 70 S.Ct. 239, 94 L.Ed. 547 (1949).

[401 F.2d 673]