Opinion ID: 1305815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Refusal to Give a Cautionary Jury Instruction Regarding the Testimony of an Accomplice

Text: Cardwell contends that the trial court erred in refusing his proffered jury instruction which would have told the jury that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice should be considered with caution. Cardwell argues that the instruction should have been given because Claiborne was an accomplice and his testimony concerning the events at the murder scene was not corroborated. We do not agree. The requested instruction should be granted only when the accomplice's testimony is uncorroborated. Allard v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 988, 989, 243 S.E.2d 216, 217 (1978). The instruction need not be granted if the accomplice's testimony is corroborated in material facts which tend to connect the accused with the crime, sufficient to warrant the jury in crediting the truth of the accomplice's testimony. Dillard v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 820, 823, 224 S.E.2d 137, 140 (1976); accord Clark v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 237, 242, 247 S.E.2d 376, 379 (1978). Additionally, an accomplice's testimony can be corroborated by an accused's admissions. Russell v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 833, 837, 223 S.E.2d 877, 879-80 (1976). In the present case, Claiborne's testimony was corroborated. The record is replete with Cardwell's admissions that he was not only the instigator of the crimes against Brown, but also the one who actually killed Brown, i.e., the so-called triggerman. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing the instruction.