State v. Riley

On review, the state challenges any interpretation of ORS 136.440(1) that requires that corroborating evidence be independent of accomplice testimony.1 The state argues that any reference to such a strict requirement in this court's case law was not necessary to the decisions reached in those cases and, in the alternative, if this court has adopted the independent evidence rule, that we should nonetheless consider the wisdom of that rule and determine whether it should give way to an approach that permits reliance on accomplice testimony "to some extent" to show corroboration under the…