Source: https://www.tdcaa.com/journal/there-is-no-honor-among-thieves-and-that-is-a-good-thing-for-prosecutors/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:11:39+00:00

Document:
In every prosecutor’s career, there will come a day when the prosecution will need to call an accomplice witness to testify against a co-defendant on trial. For those prosecutors for whom that day has not yet come, this article is designed as a primer on the potential pitfalls attendant to accomplice witness testimony, including pre-trial issues of negotiation and notice of plea agreements; suggestions on how to ensure the cooperation of an accomplice at trial; the corroboration requirement for accomplice witness testimony enumerated in the Code of Criminal Procedure; and charging issues that accompany the use of accomplice witness testimony.
Oftentimes, an accomplice will not testify for the State against a co-defendant without a plea agreement for his own charges in place. In such a scenario, the prosecutor has several options to ensure the accomplice’s cooperation at trial. Where possible, the prosecutor can enter into an agreement with the accomplice for his truthful testimony at his co-defendant’s trial. In this option, the accomplice enters a plea of guilty to his charges and sentencing is set for some time after the co-defendant’s trial. If the accomplice testifies truthfully at his co-defendant’s trial, the prosecutor negotiates and recommends an agreed sentence.11 This option allows the prosecution to secure a guilty plea and still leave sentencing open dependent upon the accomplice’s cooperation at trial. However, many prosecutors find themselves unable to take advantage of this plea bargaining option because many judges refuse to reset sentencing for an extended period of time, which may be necessary given the co-defendant’s case(s) may take months or even years to come to trial.
Another option where probation or deferred adjudication is viable is that the accomplice’s truthful testimony at the co-defendant’s trial can be made a condition of his probation. This method can both resolve the case and ensure the accomplice’s cooperation, as he will no doubt be loathe to find his probation revoked for failing to testify truthfully.
Where probation is either not available or not desirable, the options are somewhat less persuasive but can nonetheless still be effective. For instance, the accomplice can be sentenced to confinement and be required, as a condition of his plea, to give a sworn statement on the record wherein he gives a full account of his trial testimony and also acknowledges that a failure to testify truthfully will result in the plea bargain being voided. This method can ensure both the consistency of the accomplice’s testimony and the State’s ability to void his plea bargain should he fail to testify truthfully.
When the State relies on accomplice witness testimony, the defense is entitled, even without a request, to a jury charge on accomplice witness testimony where the evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice.28 That charge should instruct the jury in accordance with Article 38.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accomplice witness’s testimony must be corroborated.29 Failure to give an instruction on accomplice witness testimony is error.30 While the error in failing to give such an instruction can be found harmless on appeal,31 a prosecutor who argues against such an instruction and then hopes the error will be found harmless on appeal may find himself in for an unpleasant conversation with his appellate division and possibly have his case reversed.
While accomplice witness testimony carries with it inherent risks, in the right case it can be a useful tool. Prosecutors should therefore approach this issue with caution but not shy away from using accomplice witness testimony when necessary. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance.
1 Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 425, 439 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011).
2 Id.; Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491, 498 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
3 Smith, 332 S.W.3d at 439.
5 Id.; Paredes v. State, 129 S.W.3d 530, 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
6 Paredes, 129 S.W.3d at 536.
7 Id.; Druery, 225 S.W.3d at 498-99.
10 Ramey v. State, No. AP-75678, 2009 WL 335276 at *9-10 (Tex. Crim. App., Feb. 11, 2009) (not designated for publication).
11 See Castillo v. State, 221 S.W.3d 689, 694-95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (rejecting claim that prosecutor’s offer of leniancy in plea bargaining to accomplices in exchange for truthful testimony violated ethical rules).
12 See Tex. R. Evid. 801(e)(1)(A) (defining as “not hearsay” a statement by a witness which is inconsistent with the declarant’s testimony and was given under oath subject to a penalty of perjury).
13 See Lee v. State, 206 S.W.3d 620, 623 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discussing continuing viability of the “one witness rule” in the context of State’s voir dire).
14 Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998).
15 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 38.14.
17 Castillo, 221 S.W.3d at 691 (holding that non-accomplice corroborating evidence need not directly link the defendant to the crime, nor must it alone prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Gribble v. State, 808 S.W.2d 65, 71 n. 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (accomplice testimony need be corroborated only to the degree that the corroborating evidence tends to connect the defendant to the offense committed, and does not need to prove the corpus delicti of the crime).
18 Chapman v. State, 470 S.W.2d 656, 660 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971); Burks v. State, No. 03-12-00181-CR, 2014 WL 1285731 at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin Mar. 26, 2014 no pet.) (not designated for publication).
19 Brown v. State, 270 S.W.3d 564, 568 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
20 Castillo, 221 S.W.3d at 693.
21 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 38.14.
22 See Smith v. State, 541 S.W.2d 831, 834-35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1964).
24 See Carroll v. State, 916 S.W.2d 494, 500-01 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (holding that although the witness had no agreement with the State regarding his pending criminal charge, the defendant’s rights to confrontation were violated when the trial court disallowed questioning regarding the witness’ pending criminal charge).
25 Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 270 (1959).
28 Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
32 Zamora v. State, 411 S.W.3d 504, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
34 Druery, 225 S.W.3d at 498.
36 Zamora, 411 S.W.3d at 510.
37 Druery, 225 S.W.3d at 499.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 38
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.