Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that a prosecution witness could be considered an accomplice as a matter of fact, whose testimony required corroboration. However, the subject witness was, at most, an "accessory after the fact," whose testimony needs no corroboration under CPL 60.22 (People v Dygert,
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.
