According to CCP Art. 38.14, which type of testimony cannot lead to a conviction unless corroborated?

According to CCP Art. 38.14, which type of testimony cannot lead to a conviction unless corroborated?

• A. Testimony of an eyewitness
• B. Testimony of a police officer
• C. Testimony of an accomplice
• D. Testimony of a special investigator

Answer: (C)

The testimony of an accomplice cannot lead to a conviction unless it is corroborated by additional evidence. This legal principle is rooted in the understanding that an accomplice, being involved in the crime, may have a motive to lie or exaggerate their testimony in order to save themselves or reduce their own culpability. Because of this potential bias, the courts require that such testimony be supported by corroborating evidence that connects the defendant to the crime beyond just the accomplice's statement. This safeguard ensures that convictions are based on a higher standard of evidence, protecting against wrongful convictions that could arise from potentially unreliable testimony. In contrast, eyewitness testimony, police officer testimony, and testimony from special investigators are generally considered to be more reliable and do not carry the same inherent biases as that of an accomplice. Therefore, they do not require corroboration to support a conviction.

The testimony of an accomplice cannot lead to a conviction unless it is corroborated by additional evidence. This legal principle is rooted in the understanding that an accomplice, being involved in the crime, may have a motive to lie or exaggerate their testimony in order to save themselves or reduce their own culpability. Because of this potential bias, the courts require that such testimony be supported by corroborating evidence that connects the defendant to the crime beyond just the accomplice's statement. This safeguard ensures that convictions are based on a higher standard of evidence, protecting against wrongful convictions that could arise from potentially unreliable testimony.

In contrast, eyewitness testimony, police officer testimony, and testimony from special investigators are generally considered to be more reliable and do not carry the same inherent biases as that of an accomplice. Therefore, they do not require corroboration to support a conviction.