What is the evidence needed to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice in a murder case?

Although it is well established that the evidence needed to corroborate an accomplice's testimony need be only slight, and may be circumstantial and entitled to little consideration when considered alone, relevant case law does not support the People's position that the corroborating evidence in this case met even that low standard. For example, in a recent case, Manibusan, the defendant was convicted of murder and attempted robbery. (People v. Manibusan, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 4647, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1 .) Two victims were shot dead and a third was severely injured by a gunshot to the head. (Id. at p. 47, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1 .) The defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to give accomplice testimony instructions with respect to two witnesses. Our high court found any error was harmless because there was ample corroborating evidence from nonaccomplice witnesses. (Id . at p. 96, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1 .) This included testimony that in the early morning hours after the crimes, the defendant arrived at a witness's house, he seemed antsy, and he placed a gun in the trunk of the witness's car; the gun was the same type of gun later identified as the murder weapon; later that day the same witness saw the defendant make a gesture indicating he was responsible for the murders; soon after the shootings, a family friend found the defendant together with two other people at the friend's house, including one known accomplice; a search of the house a few days later revealed a box of bullets under the couch in the area where the defendant had sat the morning after the shootings; the bullets were of the same caliber as bullets linked to the shootings; a torn black glove was found in the trash at the house; and police later recovered a matching glove at another witness's house where the defendant had been staying before the shootings. (Id. at pp. 9596, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, 314 P.3d 1 .)

None of this evidence directly implicated the defendant. But it tended to connect him to the crimes. The evidence was not only that the defendant was in the presence of the accomplice soon after the shootings, but also circumstantially linked him to a firearm like the murder weapon and its ammunition. There was also independent evidence about the defendant's demeanor after the shootings. (See also People v. Hayes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1211, 1272 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 211, 989 P.2d 645] [corroborating evidence included nonaccomplice testimony that defendant showed unusual interest in the discovery of the victim's skull].) In this case, there was no similar corroborating evidence. The evidence that defendant was a member of a large gang in which there were in-house killings, and he was seen with the accomplice hours after the

[231 Cal.App.4th 654]