[Supporting evidence, however, may be slight. It does not need to be
enough, by itself, to prove that the defendant is guilty of the charged
crime, and it does not need to support every fact (mentioned by the
accomplice in the statement/ [or] about which the witness testiﬁed). On
the other hand, it is not enough if the supporting evidence merely shows
that a crime was committed or the circumstances of its commission. The
supporting evidence must tend to connect the defendant to the
commission of the crime.]
[Do not use the (statement/ [or] testimony) of an in-custody informant
to support the (statement/ [or] testimony) of another in-custody
informant unless you are convinced that <insert name of
party calling in-custody informant as witness> has proven it is more likely
than not that the in-custody informant has not communicated with
another in-custody informant on the subject of the testimony.
[A percipient witness is someone who personally perceived the matter
that he or she testiﬁed about.
<Insert the name of the in-custody informant if his or her statue is not in
[<insert name of witness> is an in-custody informant.]
[<insert name of institution> is a correctional institution.]
New January 2006; Revised August 2012, February 2016
The court must give this instruction on request. (Pen. Code, § 1127a.)
The court should also be aware of the following statutory provisions relating to
in-custody informants: Penal Code sections 1127a(c) [prosecution must disclose
consideration given to witness]; 1191.25 [prosecution must notify victim of in-
custody informant]; and 4001.1 [limitation on payments to in-custody informants
and action that may be taken by in-custody informant].
If there is no issue over whether the witness is an in-custody informant and the
parties agree, the court may instruct the jury that the witness “is an in-custody
informant.” If there is an issue over whether the witness is an in-custody informant,
give the bracketed deﬁnition of the term.
The committee awaits guidance from courts of review on the issue of whether this
instruction applies to witnesses other than those called by the People. Until the
issue is resolved, the committee provides this version consistent with the language
of the new statute.
If the court concludes that the corroboration requirement applies to an out-of-court
statement, use the word “statement” throughout the instruction. (See discussion in
CALCRIM No. 336 EVIDENCE