People v. Valine CA3

DISCUSSION

I The Testimony Of The Accomplice Son Was Sufficiently Corroborated Defendant contends the testimony of his accomplice son was not sufficiently corroborated. The son testified it was defendant who fatally shot the victim. We disagree because the corroborating evidence placed defendant at the scene of the crime, put the murder weapon in his hands moments after the shooting, and showed he fled the scene. “A conviction can be based on an accomplice’s testimony only if other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense corroborates that testimony. ([Pen. Code,] § 1111.) The corroborating evidence may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone, and it must tend to implicate the defendant by relating to an act that is an element of the crime. The corroborating evidence need not by itself establish every element of the crime, but it

2 must, without aid from the accomplice’s testimony, tend to connect the defendant with the crime.” (People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 985-986.) The corroborating evidence, which came from defendant himself, showed the following three facts. One, defendant admitted…