Palencia v. State

Summary

The Court held that the trial court plainly erred by giving a single-witness instruction without also instructing the jury that accomplice testimony required corroboration when the evidence could support finding that several witnesses were accomplices. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' conclusion that testimony from the surviving victim eliminated the need for an accomplice-corroboration instruction. It reversed the pertinent portion of the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded for consideration of the remaining plain-error requirements.