What is the test for determining whether a witness was an accomplice?

The trial court has a duty to instruct the jury, sua sponte, to determine whether a witness was an accomplice in the charged offense, "'"[w]henever the testimony given upon the trial is sufficient to warrant the conclusion upon the part of the jury that a witness implicating a defendant was an accomplice."'" (People v. Snyder (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1218.) The pattern jury instruction to be given when the accomplice status of a witness is in dispute is CALCRIM No. 334 [Accomplice Testimony Must Be Corroborated: Dispute Whether Witness Is Accomplice]. Alternatively, if the evidence establishes as a matter of law that a witness was an accomplice, the jury must be so instructed, and the applicable jury instruction is CALCRIM No. 335 [Accomplice Testimony: No Dispute Whether Witness Is Accomplice]. (People v. Zapien (1993) 4

Page 9

Cal.4th 929, 982.) In either event, the trial court must also instruct the jury, sua sponte, "'(1) that the testimony of the accomplice witness is to be viewed with distrust [citations], and (2) that the defendant cannot be convicted on the basis of the accomplice's testimony unless it is corroborated....'" (Ibid., quoting People v. Gordon (1973) 10 Cal.3d 460, 466, fn. 3.)