State v. Riley

Under ORS 136.440(1), “‘the corroborative evidence must be independent of the testimony of the accomplice.’” State v. Brake, 99 Or 310, 313, 195 P 583 (1921). “Other evidence is required by the statute, ‘so that it can in truth be said that his conviction is not based entirely upon the evidence of the accomplice.’” Id.

The State petitioned for review of the Court of Appeal’s reversal of Defendant’s conviction of multiple crimes with two accomplices. On appeal, Defendant had assigned error to trial court’s failure to acquit him of six counts where the evidence was based almost primarily on accomplice testimony. Defendant had argued that under ORS 136.440(1), the evidence presented was insufficient to corroborate the accomplice testimony. On review, the State challenged any interpretation of ORS 136.440(1) that required corroborating evidence be independent of accomplice testimony. Under ORS 136.440(1), “‘the corroborative evidence must be independent of the testimony of the accomplice.’” State v. Brake, 99 Or 310, 313, 195 P 583 (1921). “Other evidence is required by the statute, ‘so that it can in truth be said that his conviction is not based entirely upon the evidence of the accomplice.’” Id. The Court held that the evidence was insufficient to independently corroborate the accomplice testimony because the evidence only corroborated that the accomplices had participated in the crimes. Affirmed.