Does the prosecution need to call a corroborating witness to support the testimony of the officer?

'It was not necessary that the prosecution call a [208 Cal.App.2d 365] corroborating witness to support the testimony of [the officer] because this is not the type of case in which the law requires corroboration [citations].' (People v. McCrasky, 149 Cal.App.2d 630, 635, 309 P.2d 115, 118).

As stated in People v. Baserto, 162 Cal.App.2d 123, 125, 327 P.2d 558, 560, 'Aside from the question of rejecting [the officer's] testimony, it is also true that the court was not required to accept the alibi testimony though not directly contradicted by another witness. In other words, the judge had the prerogative of disbelieving defendant and his witness. [Citations.]'

'The uncorroborated testimony of the officer is sufficient to sustain the implied finding as to defendant's identity. [Citations.]' (People v. Shepherd, 200 A.C.A. 305, 310, 19 Cal.Rptr. 234, 237; See also People v. Smith, 174 Cal.App.2d 129, 134, 344 P.2d 435, 437.)