Palencia v. State

Summary

The court granted certiorari and held that the trial court plainly erred by giving a single-witness instruction without also instructing the jury that accomplice testimony required corroboration. The Court of Appeals incorrectly concluded that the victim's testimony and the absence of a rape-specific corroboration requirement made the accomplice-corroboration instruction unnecessary. The court reversed that portion of the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded for consideration of the remaining plain-error requirements.