Does there have to be evidence corroborating the testimony of an accomplice to the crime?

The trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 335, the instruction on the requirement that there be evidence corroborating the accomplice's testimony. By finding defendant guilty of felony murder, the jury necessarily found there to be such evidence. The jury's finding is binding on us "unless the corroborating evidence should not have been admitted or does not reasonably tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime." (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 505.) Here, there was admissible, corroborating evidence connecting defendant to the attempted burglary.