Caldwell

After a court trial defendant was convicted of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) and he has appealed from the judgment. 1 We have concluded that the judgment must be reversed because defendant’s connection with the offense was shown only by the testimony of an accomplice who was not corroborated as Penal Code section 1111 requires.

Mrs. McCoy, aged 15, testified in substance as follows: Defendant gave her a county warrant payable to Rozalia Limon, in the sum of $165, and told her he wanted her to cash it. Another man, in defendant’s presence, gave her an unsigned *196 temporary driver’s license. Upon defendant’s instruction she signed the name Rozalia Limón on this license. Defendant then drove the witness to a market, where she tried without success to cash the warrant. Then defendant took her to a furniture store. The two of them entered. Defendant told her he would purchase a cheap lamp.

When the clerk approached the witness she told him she wanted a lamp and asked if he would cash her check. She showed the clerk the check, which she had already indorsed with the name of Rozalia Limon, and the driver's license for identification. The clerk said he would cash it, and invited her to…