What is the test for relying on the testimony of an accomplice in a sexual assault case?

An accomplice is "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." ( 1111.) The testimony of accomplices must be corroborated by "such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." (Ibid.) Such evidence may not come from, or require "'aid or assistance'" from, the testimony of other accomplices or the accomplice himself. (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 543.)

Under section 1111, the jury had to conclude independent evidence linked Delvillar to the crimes before relying on the accomplices testimony. (See People v. Vu, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1021-1022.) "The corroborating evidence may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone, so long as it tends to implicate the defendant by relating to an act that is an element of the crime. [Citations.] The independent evidence need not corroborate the accomplice as to every fact on which the accomplice testifies [citation] and need not establish every element of the charged offense [citation]. The corroborating evidence is sufficient if, without aid from accomplice testimony, it '"'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.'"' [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 1022.)

Page 51

B. Analysis