What is the test for error in section 1111 of the California Criminal Code when a jury found that a defendant could not be convicted on the testimony of an accomplice?

Section 1111 provides: "[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 ...." "Error in failing to instruct the jury on consideration of accomplice testimony at the guilt phase of a trial constitutes state-law error, and a reviewing court must evaluate whether it is reasonably probable that such error affected the verdict." (People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 456.) If the trial court failed to instruct the jury that "it could not convict defendant on the testimony of an

Page 42

accomplice alone," the error "is harmless if there is evidence corroborating the accomplice's testimony." (Ibid.)

As we noted previously, "in determining the correctness of jury instructions, we consider the instructions as a whole" (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 49), we presume that jurors are "able to understand and correlate instructions" (People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834, 852), and we examine "whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied" the instructions (People v. Clair, supra, 2 Cal.4th at p. 663).