In Louisiana, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution. State v. Hollins, 15 So.3d 69, 71 (La. 2009). A cautionary accomplice instruction is not required if there is material corroboration of the accomplice's testimony.
Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent; however, the special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins , 2008-1033, p. 3 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when there is a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right. Id.
Additionally, the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated (notwithstanding the separate issue of a trial court's refusal to give requested, precautionary jury instructions) that as a general proposition of Louisiana law, uncorroborated accomplice testimony is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. State v. Hollins , 08-1033, p. 4 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71 (citingState v. Tate , 01-1658, p. 4-5 (La. 5/20/03), 851 So.2d 921, 928, cert. denied , 541 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 1604, 158 L.Ed.2d 248 (2004) ). Here, the jury apparently chose to believe Love's testimony that he saw defendant wrap a shirt around his face, exit his vehicle, and open fire on the victims' vehicle.
According to the defendant, Kristyn returned approximately thirty minutes later, and he noticed nothing odd about her appearance or behavior thereafter. In State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 4 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71–72 (footnotes and citations omitted), the supreme court addressed convictions based on accomplice testimony, stating: In Louisiana, as a general principle of law, a conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a purported accomplice, although the jury should be instructed to treat such testimony with great caution.
However, some portions of the argument go to the elements of the crime rather than the witness's credibility. The case Defendant cites, State v. Hollins, 08–1033 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, stands for the principle that a jury should be instructed that an accomplice's uncorroborated testimony should be viewed with great caution. Defendant does not argue whether the jury was so instructed in his case; rather, he claims that a principle of caution regarding accomplice testimony applies to his sufficiency of the evidence argument.
129. State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. 130.
The special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins, 08–1033, p. 3 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right exists. Id.
The special charge need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given. State v. Hollins, 08-1033, p. 3 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71. Failure to give a requested jury instruction constitutes reversible error only when a miscarriage of justice, prejudice to the substantial rights of the accused, or a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right exists. Id.
The trial court noted that "there is significant evidence that the Court has seen that does corroborate the accomplice's statement, as well as the statement of the defendant, and for those reasons found that the precautionary statement on accomplice was not appropriate." Both the trial court and Defendant referred to State v. Hollins, 08-1033, pp. 4-5 (La.6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71-73, wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent.
The trial court noted that "there is significant evidence that the Court has seen that does corroborate the accomplice's statement, as well as the statement of the defendant, and for those reasons found that the precautionary statement on accomplice was not appropriate." Both the trial court and Defendant referred to State v. Hollins, 08-1033, pp. 4-5 (La. 6/26/09), 15 So.3d 69, 71-73, wherein the supreme court discussed special instructions to the jury regarding accomplice testimony: Under La.C.Cr.P. art. 807, a requested special jury charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent.