What is sufficient corroborating evidence to convict a defendant of the murder of his accomplice's son?

must, without aid from the accomplice's testimony, tend to connect the defendant with the crime." (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 985-986.)

The corroborating evidence, which came from defendant himself, showed the following three facts. One, defendant admitted he was in the victim's house when the shots went off "in front of [him]." Two, defendant admitted he "grabbed a-hold of [the gun.]" And three, defendant admitted he fled right after the shooting, i.e., "I went straight out to the car. I was in that fuckin' car so fast." This evidence corroborated the accomplice son's testimony that it was defendant who fatally shot the victim. (See People v. Barillas (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1021 [evidence that the defendant was where the shooting took place, only a short distance from the victim, and fled after the shooting is sufficient corroborating evidence].)