Opinion ID: 160888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Gardner's Proffered Accomplice Witness Instruction

Text: 18 Mr. Gardner argues that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it should weigh the testimony of Ms. Arthur and Mr. Thornton as that of alleged accomplices with caution and care. Mr. Gardner also makes brief reference to evidence regarding Mr. Thornton's drinking habits, but does not present an argument as to why the district court's failure to give an alcohol abuse instruction was error. We therefore only address the district court's refusal to submit the tendered accomplice witness instruction to the jury. Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531, 1547 (10th Cir. 1995) 19 [I]f the testimony of an accomplice is uncorroborated, the court must instruct the jury that testimony of accomplices must be carefully scrutinized, weighed with great care, and received with caution. United States v. Hill, 627 F.2d 1052, 1053 (10th Cir. 1980) (internal quotations and citation omitted); accord United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir. 1972). Failure to so instruct the jury is reversible error. Hill, 627 F.2d at 1055 (quoting Owens, 460 F.2d at 269). We review an instruction de novo when an objection was made at trial, as is the case here. United States v. Wiktor, 146 F.3d 815, 817 (10th Cir. 1998). Accomplice testimony is uncorroborated when the testimony . . . is the only testimony directly tying the defendant into the criminal transaction . . . . United States v. Williams, 463 F.2d 393, 395 (10th Cir. 1972); accord Owens, 460 F.2d at 269. 20 Ms. Arthur and Mr. Thornton were accomplices. See United States v. Simmons, 503 F.2d 831, 837 (5th Cir. 1974) (If a witness is subject to indictment as a principal or accessory to the offense for which the defendant is charged, he is an accomplice. (citations omitted)). As explained, in the course of her testimony, Ms. Arthur admitted that she witnessed Mr. Gardner shoot the elk, and there was evidence, although controverted, that Ms. Arthur went with Mr. Gardner to retrieve the elk, butchered the elk, and that her family ate the elk. Ms. Arthur also acknowledged that the elk was shot with her gun and that the elk was transported in her truck. Mr. Thornton admitted that he helped retrieve and transport the elk. Both Ms. Arthur and Mr. Thornton were aware they could be criminally charged for their actions. 21 Ms. Arthur and Mr. Thornton's testimony was uncorroborated. While the tire tracks and elk remains near Whiterocks Road, and the elk carcass in Ms. Arthur's shed certainly serve[d] to promote their trustworthiness, there was no evidence adduced at trial beyond Ms. Arthur and Mr. Thornton's testimony that tied Mr. Gardner to the crime. Owens, 460 F.2d at 269. Therefore, because Mr. Gardner's conviction was based solely upon uncorroborated accomplice testimony, a cautionary jury instruction was required. 22 In Hill, we held that the district court's general witness credibility instruction was not sufficiently cautionary. 627 F.2d at 1054-55. Because the instruction submitted to the jury in this case is nearly identical in substance to the instruction submitted in Hill, 3 and because the instruction is the only instruction at all relevant to accomplice witness testimony, we must conclude that the instruction was insufficient. We need not address the other outstanding issues. We have reviewed the entire trial record and conclude that under proper instruction the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for the charged offenses. See United States v. Smith, 82 F.3d 1564, 1567 (10th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Mr. Gardner's conviction must be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. 23 Reversed.