What is the difference between section 1111 of the California Code of Civil Procedure and the wording of Section 1111, which provides that "a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence"?

There is a notable difference between the wording of section 1111, which provides that "[a] conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; . . ." Evidentiary requirements for a conviction are within the purview of the jury. In addition, the purpose behind this accomplice testimony requirement is to prevent lay jurors from arriving at a verdict of conviction as to a defendant based solely upon evidence which is possibly tainted by an accomplice's desire to secure leniency through implicating others. (People v. McGavock (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 332.) This concern is not present in a charge of spousal rape.