assert his accomplice's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination, see Bowman v. United States, 350 F.2d 913, 915 (9th Cir.
1965) ("[T]he privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the
witness."), he has failed to show that the district court's factual finding
that he was fully Mirandized twice before being interrogated is clearly
erroneous, see United States v. Connell, 869 F.2d 1349, 1351 (9th Cir.
1989) (reviewing a district court's factual findings underlying an adequacy
of the Miranda warning challenge for clear error), and he has not
demonstrated that his statements were illegally obtained or improperly
admitted at tria1. 2
Second, Roy contends that insufficient evidence supports his
convictions because his accomplice's testimony was not corroborated by
independent evidence and was therefore inadmissible. The evidence
necessary to corroborate accomplice testimony need not, by itself, be
sufficient to establish guilt. Ramirez-Garza v. State, 108 Nev. 376, 379,
832 P.2d 392, 393 (1992). "If the evidence, independent of the accomplice
testimony, tends to connect the accused with the commission of the
offense, then the corroboration requirement contained in NRS 175.291 is
satisfied." Id. Here, the victim testified that she lived in an apartment
located in building 22 on 6661 Silverstream Avenue and that someone
broke into her apartment and stole her belongings. Several LVMPD
detectives testified that they were conducting surveillance on Roy on the
2 To the extent that Roy relies on excerpts from his suppression
motion to prove that he was not properly advised of his Miranda rights,
we note that "[fl acts or allegations contained in a brief are not evidence
and are not part of the record." Phillips v. State, 105 Nev. 631, 634, 782
P.2d 381, 383 (1989).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
day of the break-in and observed him approach building 22 and later
return from that building carrying something. And Roy testified that he
was in the apartment on the day that it was broken into. We conclude
that this independent evidence was sufficient to connect Roy to the
commission of the offenses and thereby corroborate the accomplice's
testimony. 3
Having concluded that Roy's contentions are without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
(N.f J. , J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Carl E.G. Arnold
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3 We note that the accomplice testified as a rebuttal witness.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
Off:IMMESH= - -CS -