Is a trial court's failure to instruct on accomplice liability under section 1111 harmless?

Even assuming arguendo that there was a question of fact as to whether defendant's companions were accomplices to arson and that the trial court therefore erred by failing to give an accomplice instruction, any such error was harmless. "A trial court's failure to instruct on accomplice liability under section 1111 is harmless if there is sufficient corroborating evidence in the record. [Citation.] 'Corroborating evidence may be slight, may be entirely circumstantial, and need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense. [Citations.]' [Citation.] The evidence 'is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way as to satisfy the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth.' [Citation.]" (People v. Lewis (2001) 26 Cal.4th 334, 370.)

Here, the victim's brother testified that he saw defendant (who he identified at trial) leaving the victim's bedroom with a bottle of lighter fluid shortly before a fire started in the room, and defendant told the brother, "Don't tell anybody; Get back in your room; Don't make this a big scene; And when it gets big, just run and don't try to put it out." This testimony sufficiently corroborated other witnesses' testimonies regarding the arson. Because the corroboration requirement is a matter of state law, the failure to give an accomplice instruction does not violate a defendant's due process rights, as defendant claims. (People v. Felton, supra, 122 Cal.App.4th at pp. 273-274.) The trial court did not commit reversible error by declining to give an accomplice instruction.