Escalante v R

• Jurisdiction: Belize
• Court: Court of Appeal (Belize)
• Judge: Hogan, Sir Michael, P.
• Judgment Date: 22 July 1978
• Neutral Citation: BZ 1978 CA 3
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1977
• Date: 22 July 1978

Court of Appeal

Hogan, P., Inniss and Blair Kerr, JJ.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1977

Escalante

and

Regina

Criminal evidence - Corroboration — Accomplice.

Facts: In directing the jury the trial judge told them that if they found a certain two witnesses to be accomplices the testimony of each would provide the necessary corroboration for the testimony of the other because accomplices can corroborate each other — Jury misdirected

Held: One accomplice cannot be corroborated by the evidence of another — Appeal allowed — Re-Trial Ordered.

Hogan, Sir Michael, P.

1 On 10th October, 1977, appellant, Alejandro Escalante, was convicted before the Supreme Court of Belize on counts for burglary and for aggravated theft in that he stole a number of items from the dwelling-house of one Malik Muhammad. On 13th October 1977, he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour on the count for burglary and one-year imprisonment with hard labour on the count for aggravated theft, the sentences to concurrently.

2 Against his convictions and sentences he now appeals.

3 In directing the jury in regard to the evidence of the witnesses Moises Ysaguirre and Roger Tingling, the learned trial judge told them in effect that if they found these witnesses to be accomplices, the testimony of each would provide the necessary corroboration for the testimony of the other, for accomplices can corroborate each other.

4 While it is true that technically Roger Tingling was not an accomplice, having been called as a witness for the defence (see judgment of Lord Simonds L.C. in Michael John Davies, 38 C.A.R. 11 at p. 32 and Archbold Criminal pleading Evidence and Practice (38th Edn.) at paragraph 1425), we have noted that his being called by the accused/appellant followed on the failure of the prosecution, for whom he was originally a witness, to call him; and that, having regard to his evidence, which turned out to be unfavourable to the accused, he might have been found by the jury to have been a receiver of some of the stolen goods.

5 In this connection we have adverted to the case of Kenneth Frank Prater, 44 C.A.R. 83. In this case, one Welham, a co-accused with the appellant, had, at the trial, given evidence on his own behalf adverse to the appellant. In the course of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Edmund Davies J., the following passage appears at p. 85: –

“Whether the label to be attached...