What is the test for "corroborative evidence" in a criminal solicitation case?

Section 653f, subdivision (a), makes it unlawful to ask another person to commit a specified crime, including arson and assault with a deadly weapon, with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime of solicitation must "be proven by the testimony of two witnesses, or of one witness and corroborating circumstances." ( 653f, subd. (f).) This requirement "guard[s] against convictions for solicitation based on the testimony of one person who may have suspect motives." (People v. Phillips (1985) 41 Cal.3d 29, 76.)

"Corroborative evidence need not be strong nor even sufficient in itself, without the aid of other evidence, to establish the fact." (People v. Baskins (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 728, 731.) It can " ' "be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone." ' " (People v. Sanders (1995) 11 Cal.4th 475, 535.) Corroborative evidence is sufficient "if it tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime in such a way as may reasonably satisfy the trier of fact that the witness who must be corroborated is telling the truth." (People v. Rissman (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 265, 277.)