WPIC 6.05 Testimony of Accomplice

This instruction should be used if requested by the defense. However, the instruction is mandatory if the State relies on testimony of an accomplice that is uncorroborated. Do not use this instruction if an accomplice or codefendant testifies for the defendant. Use WPIC 10.51 (Accomplice—Definition) with this instruction.

The instruction was cited with approval in State v. Statler, 160 Wn.App. 622, 248 P.3d 165 (2011) and State v. Murphy, 98 Wn.App. 42, 47 n.5, 988 P.2d 1018 (1999).

This instruction is not limited to those cases in which a witness is charged as an accomplice, cf. RCW 9A.08.020(6).

An instruction to view the testimony of an accomplice with caution is mandatory when the prosecution relies solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. A conviction may rest solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice only if the jury has been sufficiently cautioned by the court to subject the accomplice's testimony to careful examination and to regard it with great care and caution. State v. Carothers, 84 Wn.2d 256, 525 P.2d 731 (1974), as reinterpreted by State v. Harris, 102 Wn.2d 148, 155, 685 P.2d 584 (1984), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 113 Wn.2d 520, 782 P.2d 1013 (1989).

A cautionary instruction is required if the accomplice's testimony is uncorroborated. State v. Willoughby, 29 Wn.App. 828, 630 P.2d 1387 (1981). When substantial corroborating evidence exists, the instruction need not be given, although “it is always the better practice for a trial court to give the cautionary instruction whenever accomplice testimony is introduced.” State v. Harris, 102 Wn.2d at 155 (whether the instruction is needed depends on the extent of the corroborating evidence; harmless error is not committed if the corroborating evidence is substantial).