Opinion ID: 1144129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The evidence adduced at trial sufficiently corroborated the accomplice testimony.

Text: The key prosecution witnesses at trial were Kathryn Hathcock and Bruce Wisner, both of whom were arguably accomplices to the criminal acts of which defendant was charged. Defendant claims that the testimony of these two witnesses is insufficiently corroborated by other evidence at trial to satisfy the corroboration requirement of Penal Code section 1111. [16] Assuming, for the purpose of this determination, that both Bruce and Kathryn were accomplices whose testimony required independent corroboration, [17] we are fully satisfied that there was sufficient testimony at trial to meet the requisites of section 1111. In People v. Holford (1965) 63 Cal.2d 74, 82 [45 Cal. Rptr. 167, 403 P.2d 423], we reviewed the standard by which the sufficiency of corroborating evidence is to be determined. The evidence required for corroboration of an accomplice `need not corroborate the 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; it must tend to implicate the defendant and therefore must relate to some act or fact which is an element of the crime but it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the offense charged.' ( People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 257 [324 P.2d 556]; see Witkin, Cal. Evidence (1958) 544-545 and cases cited therein.) Moreover, evidence of corroboration is sufficient if it connects defendant with the crime, although such evidence `is slight and entitled, when standing by itself, to but little consideration.' ( People v. McLean (1890) 84 Cal. 480, 482 [24 P. 32]; People v. Kempley (1928) 205 Cal. 441, 456 [271 P. 478].) (See also People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 769 [103 Cal. Rptr. 161, 499 P.2d 129].) (8) In the instant case, the record discloses several evidentiary matters which, independent of the accomplice testimony, connect defendant with the commission of the offense. The most substantial corroborating evidence is the testimony of Joe Hamilton concerning the events which took place in the Wisner home during the evening of January 31, 1968. Hamilton's testimony revealed (1) that defendant was in the presence of the two victims at a time shortly before their deaths, (2) that defendant was in possession of the gun later shown to have been the murder weapon and (3) that defendant viciously assaulted Al Owens, one of the murder victims, shortly before Owens was shot to death. Although evidence of defendant's mere presence at the party with the two victims on the night of the murders would not, in itself, constitute sufficient corroboration (see People v. Robinson (1964) 61 Cal.2d 373, 398-400 [38 Cal. Rptr. 890, 392 P.2d 970]; People v. Lloyd (1967) 253 Cal. App.2d 236, 241 [61 Cal. Rptr. 138]), in the instant case defendant was not only placed with Owens and Barbara Simon but shown to have brutally attacked Owens, inflicting serious injuries. The coroner's report concerning Owens's head wound verified Hamilton's description of the assault. In addition, the testimony of Paul Wolfe, Kathryn's brother, also serves to support the accomplice testimony of defendant's complicity in the crime. Wolfe testified that on February 3d or 4th Kathryn and defendant asked him to burn the tires of their car and to replace them with new tires; defendant gave Wolfe the money for the new tires. Defendant's participation in this rather unusual and, under the circumstances, suspicious request is at least slight corroboration of his involvement in the preceding activities. Finally, while in prison awaiting trial on the present charges, defendant attempted to pass out a note to his wife; the note set out a factual background to support defendant's alibi defense and was evidently an attempt to secure his wife's testimonial support for a narrative defendant intended to relate in court. Although, once again, this evidence in itself would not support the criminal conviction, taken in the totality of the circumstances the note does tend to reinforce the accomplice testimony as to defendant's participation in the crime. (Cf. People v. Luker (1965) 63 Cal.2d 464, 471 [47 Cal. Rptr. 209, 407 P.2d 9].) In sum, the evidence adduced at trial, independent of the testimony of Wisner and Kathryn, sufficiently corroborated the accomplice testimony as required by Penal Code section 1111.