State v. Riley

"Accomplice testimony is not sufficient to convict someone unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the offense alleged.” ORS 136.440(1). "It is not enough that the extrinsic evidence establish general criminality." State v. Foster, 221 Or. App. 108, 113, 188 P.2d 440 (2008). The extrinsic evidence must connect the defendant with the offense independent of any accomplice testimony. State v. Reynolds, 160 Or. 445, 458, 86 P.2d 314 (1939).

Defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him on 17 counts of various crimes. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal for the charges of attempted burglary and attempted kidnapping. On appeal,  Defendant argued that the he was wrongly convicted for those crimes because the conviction rested solely on testimony of his accomplices without any extrinsic evidence. The state argued that the presence of zip ties, thermite, and other items in the vehicle Defendant was sitting in when he was arrested sufficiently connected the Defendant with the attempted kidnapping without accomplice testimony. "Accomplice testimony is not sufficient to convict someone unless it is corroborated by other evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the offense alleged.”  ORS 136.440(1). "It is not enough that the extrinsic evidence establish general criminality." State v. Foster, 221 Or. App. 108, 113, 188 P.2d 440 (2008). The extrinsic evidence must connect the defendant with the offense independent of any accomplice testimony. State v. Reynolds, 160 Or. 445, 458, 86 P.2d 314 (1939). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in convicting Defendant for the attempted kidnapping because the purported extrinsic evidence only connected the Defendant with attempted kidnapping when supplemented by the testimony of his accomplice. Judgment of conviction on Counts 21 through 26 reversed; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.