PC 1111. “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.”
Corroboration. Thus, for the jury to rely on an accomplice’s testimony about the circumstances of an offense, it must find evidence that, ‘without aid from the accomplice’s testimony, tend[s] to connect the defendant with the crime’” (People v. Rodriguez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1123, 1128.)
“The entire conduct of the parties, their relationship, acts, and conduct may be taken into consideration by the trier of fact in determining the sufficiency of the corroboration.” (Ibid.)
Corroborating evidence need not independently establish the identity of the victim’s assailant, nor corroborate every fact to which the accomplice testifies, and may be circumstantial or slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. (People v. Romero and Self (2015) 62 Cal.4th 1, 32-33.)
Aranda/Bruton
Overview. A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses is violated when the testimonial statement of a codefendant that facially and powerfully implicates the defendant is admitted in their joint trial regardless of whether the jury is instructed it can only use and consider the codefendant’s statement against the codefendant. (See Bruton v.United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123; People v.Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 129; People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518.)
When Rule Implicated. “[A] trial court faced with a prosecutor’s request to admit a codefendant’s confession at a joint trial must resort to other options beyond a limiting instruction, such as (1) redacting the codefendant’s confession in a way that both omits the defendant but does not prejudice the codefendant [citations]; (2) severing the trial or using separate juries for each defendant [citation]; or (3) excluding the evidence altogether [citation].” (People v. Washington (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 19, 27.)