People v. Martinez
California Court of Appeal, 5th District
1Opinion of the CourtTangeman, J.
*723Sometimes a witness wears two hats: that of a witness, and that of an accomplice. California law permits placing the burden to prove such a witness's accomplice status on a defendant. ( People v. Tewksbury (1976) 15 Cal.3d 953, 963-968, 127 Cal.Rptr. 135, 544 P.2d 1335 ( Tewksbury ).) This is because, in general, whether a witness is an accomplice is not an element of the defendant's crimes. ( Id . at p. 965, 127 Cal.Rptr. 135, 544 P.2d 1335.) But certain crimes, such as sexual penetration in concert and rape in concert, require proof that the defendant acted with an accomplice. (See Pen.…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- People v. DoolinCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. FryeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1998
- People v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
- People v. AvilaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. MayfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- (HC) Aguilera v. BurtonDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025
- People v. Torres CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2020