Court Opinion

ID: 9584526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:49:30.994584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:12.767895
License: Public Domain

Mulroney, J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the affirmance. I feel the governing rule is stated in the majority opinion where the opinion points out the testimony with respect to the finding of the exhibits in defendant’s ear and room was for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of the accomplices. The proof of identity of the exhibits as the fruits of the crime was sufficient tO' constitute corroboration for the accomplices’ testimony, even though it might be insufficient to constitute substantive proof of guilt. See People v. Williams, 17 Cal. App. 2d 122, 61 P.2d 813. This is but an application of the familiar rule that the corroborating- testimony of an accomplice need not be such as will lead to an inference of guilt, independently of the *355accomplice’s testimony. State v. Bosch, 172 Iowa 88, 153 N.W. 73. Some of the language of the majority opinion and the authorities discussed therein indicate a holding that the proof of identity of the exhibits as the property stolen would be sufficient to warrant an inference of guilt. I do not wish, and I do not think it necessary, to go that far. It is sufficient for this ease to hold the proof of identity is corroboration of material facts of the testimony of the accomplices.