III. Corroboration of Accomplice Testimony Relying on State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001), Defendant argues that the accomplices' testimony was insufficiently corroborated to support his convictions. Specifically, Defendant contends that no witness other than the accomplices could identify Defendant as a participant in the offenses.
However, we will address the sufficiency of the evidence issue because this issue is reviewable notwithstanding the untimely motion for new trial. See State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 390 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001). The Defendant was sentenced to twenty years as a violent offender for each especially aggravated kidnapping conviction. He received a sentence of ten years as a Range I, standard offender for the aggravated robbery conviction and a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days for the misdemeanor theft conviction.
Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to legally corroborate the accomplice testimony of Ms. Costello, and therefore the convictions should be reversed and dismissed. In State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001), this Court set forth the applicable well settled law regarding corroboration of an accomplice's testimony as follows. Our supreme court has set forth the quantum of proof necessary to establish sufficient corroboration as follows:
Generally, the question of a witness' status as an accomplice is answered by determining whether that person could have been indicted for the charged offense. State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001). If the facts about the witness' participation in the crime are clear and undisputed, the trial court should determine as a matter of law whether the witness was an accomplice.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence Relying on this Court's decision in State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2001), Defendant argues that the accomplices' testimony was insufficiently corroborated to support his conviction. That is, none of the witnesses other than the accomplices could identify Defendant as a participant in the robbery.
For evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, that evidence must relate to the identity of the defendant as a criminal actor. State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tenn. Crim, App. 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. Apr. 1, 2002). Evidence of mere membership in a gang cannot prove, in itself, that a person committed a crime.
Because accomplices cannot corroborate each other, cases involving multiple accomplices require additional corroboration. State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citing State v. Green, 915 S.W.2d 827, 831 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995)).
As to the Appellant's claim that the evidence is insufficient because the State failed to present proof to corroborate the accomplices' testimony about an agreement to sell heroin or cocaine, a felony conviction in Tennessee may not rest solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Moreover, one accomplice cannot corroborate another.
Griffis, 964 S.W.2d at 589; see State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 644 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 387 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). Instead,
Additionally, accomplices cannot corroborate each other. State v. Boxley, 76 S.W.3d 381, 386 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001). This Court has defined the term "accomplice" to mean "one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent with the principal unites in the commission of a crime."