Can accomplice testimony with inconsistencies support a murder conviction? State v. Crespo Explained

In State v. Crespo, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether inconsistent testimony from an incentivized accomplice could support a murder conviction when corroborated by circumstantial evidence.

Background and Facts

Santiago Crespo was a drug dealer who sold drugs to the victim. After the victim reported that Crespo had raped her, Crespo became angry and told an associate over the phone that “dead bitches can’t talk.” Crespo asked a neighbor for a gun, then obtained firearms and ammunition. He instructed his accomplice to offer the victim free cocaine to gain entry to her apartment to discuss retracting the rape accusation. When the victim refused to recant, Crespo appeared in her doorway with a gun drawn and shot her three times, killing her.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether accomplice testimony was sufficient to support Crespo’s conviction when the accomplice had received a favorable plea agreement (dismissal of murder charges) and had given inconsistent statements to police. Crespo argued the testimony was “self-serving and inconsistent” and should be deemed inherently improbable under State v. Robbins.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court distinguished Robbins, explaining that the inherent improbability test applies only when accomplice testimony is “the sole evidence that a crime was even committed” and “there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence.” Here, substantial circumstantial evidence corroborated the accomplice’s account: witness testimony about Crespo’s anger and threats, his requests for weapons, security camera footage showing him walking toward the victim’s apartment, and ballistics evidence excluding the accomplice’s gun as the murder weapon while Crespo’s gun was never recovered.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that corroborated accomplice testimony can support convictions even when the accomplice received significant charging concessions. Defense counsel effectively highlighted inconsistencies and incentives during closing argument, which the court found satisfied the same purpose as a cautionary jury instruction. The case demonstrates that successful challenges to accomplice testimony require showing both incredible dubiosity and lack of circumstantial corroboration—inconsistencies alone are insufficient when other evidence supports the accomplice’s core account.