Opinion ID: 2613958
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sufficiency of Corroborative Evidence

Text: The law requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony is well established. (20) 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.... (§ 1111.) `The requisite corroboration may be established entirely by circumstantial evidence. [Citations.] Such evidence may be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. [Citations.]' ( People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 982, quoting People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 100 [241 Cal. Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127].) `Corroborating evidence 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. [Citation.]' ( People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 982, quoting People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1228 [283 Cal. Rptr. 144, 812 P.2d 163].) In this regard, the prosecution must produce independent evidence which, without aid or assistance from the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the crime charged. [Citation.] ( People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 769 [103 Cal. Rptr. 161, 499 P.2d 129].) `Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it substantiates enough of the accomplice's testimony to establish his credibility [citation omitted].' ( People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1206-1207 [249 Cal. Rptr. 71, 756 P.2d 795].) (19b) In applying the foregoing rules, we find there was substantial corroborative evidence connecting defendant to the crimes in question. Zavala testified that: (1) when he opened the door for Ontiveros, a man with a tire iron and a man with a knife immediately rushed into the apartment and started attacking him and his brother; (2) during course of the attack, the man with the tire iron (whom he later identified as Garcia) asked him, [?]donde la tienes? (where do you have it?); (3) Zavala assumed that it meant money or drugs; (4) after Zavala said that it was in the closet, the man with the knife (whom he later described as looking similar to defendant) told Garcia, finish him too; and (5) the two attackers fled when the telephone began ringing and the man with the knife said, Well let's get out of here the police might going to come [ sic ]. Although Zavala could not identify defendant with certainty, Vargas could and did. She positively identified defendant and Garcia as the two men who had fled past her window on the night of the crimes, and testified that defendant fled the crime scene with an injured arm. Zavala also testified that the knife-wielding attacker fled with an injured arm, while Dr. Billings testified that on the morning of May 5, 1987, defendant received stitches for an injury to his left arm caused by a sharp instrument. Further corroborating evidence came from Raymond Rodriguez, who admitted that, at defendant's request, he lied about defendant's arm injury and retrieved defendant's car from Ontiveros the morning after the crimes had occurred. Physical evidence also tended to connect defendant to the crimes. Barragan's wounds were consistent with face-to-face stabbings by a left-handed assailant; hospital records reflected that defendant was left-handed. Additionally, traces of blood consistent with defendant's blood type were found inside the handle of the knife found by the police with Ontiveros's help. Finally, blood on a tissue in defendant's car trunk was consistent with the blood of either Zavala or Barragan, but not with the blood of defendant or Garcia. While defendant apparently concedes that the above evidence sufficiently tends to connect him with Barragan's murder, he claims it does not adequately connect him with an attempted robbery or burglary. (See People v. Reingold (1948) 87 Cal. App.2d 382, 403 [197 P.2d 175] [circumstances must tend to connect the accused with the specific offense for which he is on trial].) Focusing on the circumstances testified to by Zavala, defendant argues that the unadorned question  where do you have it?  does not in itself reflect any intent or attempt to commit the crime of robbery or burglary. In his view, the question is an ambiguous and essentially meaningless question if considered without aid or assistance from Ontiveros's testimony and statements. (See People v. Perry, supra, 7 Cal.3d at p. 769.) We disagree. Even though the attackers were not specific in demanding money or drugs, the totality of circumstances testified to by Zavala, even apart from Ontiveros's testimony, clearly justified the jury's determination that an attempted robbery and burglary had taken place. (See, e.g., People v. Jackson (1963) 222 Cal. App.2d 296, 298 [35 Cal. Rptr. 38] [attempted robbery conviction upheld where evidence established that defendant entered store, pointed a gun at store operator, and said only, This is it.]; People v. Gilbert (1963) 214 Cal. App.2d 566, 567-568 [29 Cal. Rptr. 640] [where two armed men appeared in market shortly after closing time and simultaneously displayed their weapons, one pointing at proprietor near cash drawer and the other herding remaining occupants to rear room, lack of phrase such as this is a stickup or hand over your money does not bar the reasonable inference that a forceful taking of property was intended].) Although Zavala testified that it was Garcia who demanded where it was, the jury could reasonably infer from all the testimony given by Zavala that the attackers coordinated their efforts in a joint plan to rob the brothers. The circumstances additionally supported the inference that the attackers would have succeeded in that plan had it not been for the telephone ringing. [33] (Cf. People v. Zapien, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 984 [upholding special circumstance finding that defendant murdered victim during commission of attempted robbery and burglary where jury could reasonably conclude that defendant fled without money or valuables because he knew police had been telephoned].) Contrary to defendant's assertions, there is nothing fanciful or illogical about these inferences. The record contains more than ample corroborating evidence supporting the burglary and attempted robbery convictions, the conviction for first degree felony murder and the felony-based special-circumstance findings. [34] That being the case, we reject defendant's further contentions that the verdict violates his rights to due process, a reliable guilt determination and other perceived constitutional protections.