People v. Glasper, 52 N.Y.2d 970 (1981)

Corroborative evidence for accomplice testimony need not prove the crime itself, but must independently connect the defendant to the crime to reasonably assure the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that sufficient independent evidence corroborated an accomplice’s testimony to support the defendant’s conviction. The court clarified that while corroborative evidence must be truly independent and not derive its probative value from the accomplice’s testimony, it need not independently prove the commission of the crime. It is sufficient if the evidence tends to connect the defendant to the crime in a way that reasonably satisfies the jury that the accomplice is being truthful. The cumulative effect of the corroborative evidence presented met this standard.

Facts

The defendant, Glasper, was convicted based, in part, on the testimony of an accomplice. Independent evidence established the accomplice’s participation in the criminal enterprise. Evidence placed Glasper in the company of the accomplice before and after the crimes. A portion of a distinctive handkerchief worn by one of the perpetrators was found partially burned near a dumpster by Glasper’s residence. Glasper left for Detroit after the crime. Glasper stated there was “some trouble.”

Procedural History

The case was tried in a lower court, where Glasper was convicted. Glasper appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. Glasper then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether there was sufficient independent evidence to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice to sustain the conviction.

Holding

Yes, because the corroborative evidence independently established the accomplice’s participation in the criminal enterprise and that the defendant was in the company of the accomplice prior to and after the crimes occurred. Additionally, a portion of a distinctive handkerchief was found near the defendant’s residence. Finally, the defendant’s departure for Detroit and his statement that there was “some trouble” could be interpreted as flight and an admission of guilt.

Court’s Reasoning

The court applied the established rule that accomplice testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence. It emphasized that this corroborative evidence must be