Opinion ID: 2357828
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Corroboration of Aggravating Evidence

Text: (8) Section 190.3, factor (b) provides that in determining whether to impose the death penalty or life without possibility of parole, the trier of fact may take into consideration the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. The evidence of defendant's prior violent acts included his involvement with Frank Lewis in the attempted murder of Lisa La Pierre [13] and with Leonard Washington in two bank robberies. [14] Defendant contends it was error to admit Lewis's and Washington's testimony because it was not corroborated. (9) Section 1111 prohibits a defendant from being convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. The section provides that accomplice testimony must 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. [¶] An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given. The accomplice corroboration requirement applies to the penalty phase as well. ( People v. Hernandez (2003) 30 Cal.4th 835, 873-874 [134 Cal.Rptr.2d 602, 69 P.3d 446]; People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 1000 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 654, 51 P.3d 874] ( McDermott ); People v. Mincey (1992) 2 Cal.4th 408, 461 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, 827 P.2d 388].) The corroborating evidence may be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. However, it must tend to implicate the defendant by relating to an act that is an element of the crime. It need not by itself establish every element, but must, without aid from the accomplice's testimony, tend to connect the defendant with the offense. The trier of fact's determination on the issue of corroboration is binding on review unless the corroborating evidence should not have been admitted or does not reasonably tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. ( People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 505 [61 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 161 P.3d 58]; McDermott, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 986.) Lewis's testimony was adequately corroborated by other evidence connecting defendant with the attempted murder of Lisa La Pierre. One of the expended cartridge casings found at the La Pierre crime scene was fired by the .380-caliber pistol defendant dropped at Glasgow Place. Detective Cade related statements made by Glenn Johnson. Johnson said that defendant admitted he dropped the pistol and ran from the police. Defendant had earlier given him the same pistol and warned him to be careful with it because there was some murders on the gun. Referring to this evidence, defense counsel admitted in argument that Lewis's testimony was corroborated. [Y]ou are left with some evidence, yeah, the gun. During the guilt phase, there is that evidence that came in that the gun that shot Miss La Pierre was the same .380 semiautomatic that was used in the other crimes. So there is some corroboration. The Attorney General contends that Frank Lewis's testimony regarding defendant's involvement in the attempted murder of Lisa La Pierre served to corroborate Leonard Washington's testimony regarding defendant's involvement in the bank robberies, because defendant used the same modus operandi in all three instances, using teenagers to commit the crimes while he waited in the car. We need not resolve this question. There is no reasonable possibility that defendant would have received a more favorable verdict had Washington not testified in the penalty phase. [15] The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed one murder and four attempted murders. It is extremely unlikely that they had been ambivalent about the death penalty but were won over to that decision by relying on two robberies in which no one was injured.