What is the legal test for corroborating the testimony of an accomplice in a sexual assault case?

The trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the well settled principals relating to accomplice testimony. (People v. Tobias (2001) 25 Cal.4th 327, 331.) These principals include 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 . . . ." (Pen. Code, 1111.) The evidence required to corroborate an

Page 22

accomplice may be slight. The defendant's own conduct implying consciousness of guilt constitutes sufficient corroboration. (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 563.)

The statute defines "accomplice" as "one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given." (Pen. Code, 1111.) This definition " 'encompasses all principals to the crime [citation], including aiders and abettors and coconspirators.' [Citation.]" (People v. Mohamed (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 152, 161; see Pen. Code, 31 [principal in a crime is one who either directly commits the offense, or one who aids and abets in its commission].)