California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gravely, D073591 (Cal. App. 2019):
"In reviewing an order granting a new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, drawing all factual inferences that favor the trial court's decision. [Citations.] The trial court's factual findings, express or implied, will be upheld if supported by any substantial evidence. [Citation.] The order will be reversed only if it can be said as a matter of law that there is no substantial evidence to support a judgment contrary to the verdict." (People v. Dickens (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1252, fn. omitted.)
Section 1111 provides: "A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof." Although corroborating evidence is required, it " 'may be slight, entirely circumstantial, and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. [Citations.] It need not be sufficient to establish every element of the charged offense or to establish the precise facts to which the accomplice testified. [Citations.] It is "sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the crime in such a way as to satisfy the jury that the accomplice is telling the truth." ' " (People v. Manibusan (2013) 58 Cal.4th 40, 95.) The corroborating evidence must tend to connect the defendant with the crime, " ' "without aid from the accomplice's testimony." ' " (People v. Williams (2013) 56 Cal.4th 630, 679.)
Page 25
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.