Is corroborating evidence sufficient to convict a defendant of a crime?

accomplice as to every fact to which he testifies but is sufficient if it does not require interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accomplice yet 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.] [Citations.] (People v. Davis (2005) 36 Cal.4th 510, 543 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 96, 115 P.3d 417] , italics in original.) As the statute itself explicitly states: [T]he corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof. ¹⁰

Thus, even in cases where the reviewing court has included in a recitation of corroborating evidence testimony that relates only to details or the circumstances of the crime, courts have found such evidence sufficient in addition to other evidence tending to connect the defendant to the crime. For example, in People v. Henderson, supra, 34 Cal.2d 340, 209 P.2d 785 , the court found there was sufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice in a case arising out of an attempted robbery. (Id. at p. 342, 209 P.2d 785 .) The court identified nonaccomplice evidence corroborating the accomplice's testimony regarding the number, color, and type of guns he and the

[180 Cal.Rptr.3d 85]