Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant alleges error in the court's refusal to charge that if the jury found the prosecution's eyewitness to be an accomplice, his testimony required corroboration. Pursuant to CPL 60.22 (2), a person is an accomplice if there is evidence that he could "reasonably be considered to have participated in * * * the offense charged". There is no such evidence at bar (see, People v Le Grand,
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.