What is the test for corroboration of testimony by an accomplice in a sexual assault case?

Section 1111 requires corroboration of accomplice testimony. It provides, in pertinent part, "A conviction can not 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; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." "'The evidence required for corroboration of an accomplice "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; it must tend to implicate the defendant and therefore must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the crime but it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense charged." [Citations.] Moreover, evidence of corroboration is sufficient if it connects defendant with the crime, although such evidence "is slight and entitled, when standing by itself, to

Page 50

but little consideration." [Citations.]' [Citations.]" (People v. Garrison (1989) 47 Cal.3d 746, 773.)

It is true that "In order to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice the prosecution must introduce independent evidence which of itself connects the defendant with the crime without any aid from the testimony of an accomplice." (People v. Luker (1965) 63 Cal.2d 464, 469.) Such evidence may not come from the testimony of other accomplices. (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 543.)