Can a defendant be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice?

• A. Yes, if corroborated
• B. No; requires corroborative evidence connecting the defendant to the offense
• C. Only if the accomplice testifies under oath
• D. Only in capital cases

Answer: (B)

The essential point is that you cannot convict a defendant based only on an accomplice’s testimony. New York law requires independent corroboration—some extra evidence that tends to connect the defendant to the crime. The accomplice’s testimony can be part of the case, but there must be other proof linking the defendant to the offense; without that corroboration, a conviction cannot rely solely on what the accomplice says.

This rules out the idea that a conviction is allowed if the accomplice’s testimony happens to be corroborated, since the verdict would still rest on the accomplice’s account plus that independent link, not on the accomplice alone. It also rejects the notions that oath status or capital-case status determine the rule.