What is the current state of the law on the sufficiency of evidence corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice?

We will now proceed to the main issue of appellants' contentions, namely, that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Particular emphasis is placed by them upon a method adopted by some of the decisions in testing the sufficiency of evidence corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice. This method was first announced in People v. Morton, 139 Cal. 719, 724, 73 P. 609, 611, wherein the following language from Welden v. State, 10 Tex.App. 400, was quoted: 'We suggest this mode as a proper test: Eliminate from the case the evidence of the accomplice, and then examine the evidence of the other witness or witnesses with the view to ascertain if there be inculpatory evidence--evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense. If there is, the accomplice is corroborated; if there is no inculpatory evidence there is [98 Cal.App.2d 24] no corroboration, though the accomplice may be corroborated in regard to any number of facts sworn to by him.'

Appellants rely strongly upon the case of People v. Reingold, 87 Cal.App.2d 382, on page 393, 197 P.2d 175, on page 182, wherein the test above quoted was employed. In applying it to the evidence the court said: '* * * the corroboration is not sufficient if it requires interpretation and direction to be furnished by the accomplice's testimony to give it value; second, that the corroborative evidence to be sufficient and of the required substantial value must tend directly and immediately to connect the defendant with the offense charged against him; and, third, that the corroborative evidence is insufficient when it merely casts a grave suspicion upon the accused.'