Section 334 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

AND
3. That (he/she) could be punished for participating in the conduct.]
If you decide that a (declarant/[or] witness) was not an accomplice, then
supporting evidence is not required and you should evaluate his or her
(statement/[or] testimony) as you would that of any other witness.
If you decide that a (declarant/[or] witness) was an accomplice, then you
may not convict the defendant of
<insert charged crime[s]>
based on his or her (statement/[or] testimony) alone. You may use (a
statement/[or] testimony) of an accomplice that tends to incriminate the
defendant to convict the defendant only if:
1. The accomplice’s (statement/[or] testimony) is supported by other
evidence that you believe;
2. That supporting evidence is independent of the accomplice’s
(statement/[or] testimony);
AND
3. That supporting evidence tends to connect the defendant to the
commission of the crime[s].
Supporting evidence, however, may be slight. It does not need to be
enough, by itself, to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charged
crime[s], and it does not need to support every fact (mentioned by the
accomplice in the statement/[or] about which the accomplice testified).
On the other hand, it is not enough if the supporting evidence merely
shows that a crime was committed or the circumstances of its
commission. The supporting evidence must tend to connect the defendant
to the commission of the crime.
[The evidence needed to support the (statement/[or] testimony) of one
accomplice cannot be provided by the (statement/[or] testimony) of
another accomplice.]
Any (statement/[or] testimony) of an accomplice that tends to
incriminate the defendant should be viewed with caution. You may not,
however, arbitrarily disregard it. You should give that (statement/[or]
testimony) the weight you think it deserves after examining it with care
and caution and in the light of all the other evidence.
New January 2006; Revised June 2007, April 2010, April 2011, February 2016,
March 2019, April 2020, September 2023
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
There is a sua sponte duty to instruct on the principles governing the law of
accomplices, including the need for corroboration, if the evidence at trial suggests
EVIDENCE
CALCRIM No. 334
103

specific crime or crimes requiring corroboration in the first sentence.
Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “A person who lacks criminal intent”
when the evidence suggests that the witness did not share the defendant’s specific
criminal intent, e.g., witness was an undercover police officer or an unwitting
assistant.
Give the bracketed paragraph that begins with “You may not conclude that a child
under 14 years old” on request if the defendant claims that a child witness’s
testimony must be corroborated because the child acted as an accomplice. (Pen.
Code, § 26; People v. Williams (1936) 12 Cal.App.2d 207, 209 [55 P.2d 223].)
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “The burden is on the defendant”
unless acting with an accomplice is an elemen