The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (& 26) (Miss. 1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.
The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss.1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.
And in recent years, this Court has continued to recognize as much, consistently refusing to reverse cases just because a testifying accomplice has been questioned about or mentioned his or her earlier guilty plea. SeeHathorne v. State , 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (Miss. 1999) (finding no reversible error where testifying accomplice mentioned earlier guilty plea, because such was evidence of a prior consistent statement, admissible under Miss. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) ); Clemons v. State , 733 So.2d 266, 271 (Miss. 1999) ; Henderson v. State , 732 So.2d 211, 215 (Miss.
The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss.1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.
The supreme court has held that an accomplice's testimony that he or she had previously entered a guilty plea to the same charge that the defendant is being tried for is evidence of a prior consistent statement. Hathorne v. State, 759 So. 2d 1127, 1132 (¶ 26) (Miss. 1999). In addition, it is at times appropriate for a third person to testify to rebut a charge of improper influence or recent fabrication.
Price also correctly notes that only slight corroboration of an accomplice's testimony is required to sustain a conviction. Hathorne v. State, 759 So.2d 1127, 1133(31) (Miss. 1999). Price interprets Hathorne to mean that where there is no corroboration, accomplice testimony is insufficient to sustain a conviction.