Is there sufficient corroborating evidence to convict a defendant of a charge of attempted murder?

However, defendant's argument incorrectly assumes there must be corroborating evidence he was the shooter. The issue here is not whether there is sufficient corroboration of every element or detail of the offenses, but whether there is sufficient corroborating evidence connecting defendant to the crimes. That evidence "`"need not corroborate the accomplice as to every fact to which he testifies but is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth . . . ." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Davis, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 543, italics omitted.)