People v. Estes

VALLÉE, J.

Defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit the offense denounced by section 288a of the Penal Code. He appeals from the judgment.

The male person who participated in the alleged attempt with the defendant was the principal witness for the prosecution. It appears to be conceded that this witness was an accomplice. (See

People

v.

McCollum,

214 Cal. 601, 602 [7 P.2d 301] ;

People

v.

McRae,

31 Cal.2d 184, 185 [187 P.2d 741].) Defendant’s claim is that the testimony of the accom

[747]

plic'e was not corroborated as required by section 1111 of the Penal "Code.

The corroboration is sufficient if considered by itself it tends to connect the defendant with the offense charged in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the accomplice is telling the truth. If corroborating evidence creates more, than a suspicion of guilt, it is sufficient even though it be slight and, when standing by itself, entitled to but little consideration. It is not necessary that the independent evidence be sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. It is not necessary that the accomplice be corroborated as to every fact to which he testified. Inferences from the defendant’s testimony may suffice to corroborate an accomplice. A defendant’s admissions, active and passive, may constitute corroboration. A defendant’s consciousness of guilt is corroborative of an accomplice. Whether the corroborating evidence by itself is as compatible with innocence as it is with guilt, is a question for the trier of fact, not for the reviewing court.

(People

v.

Henderson,

34 Cal.2d 340, 342, 346 [209 P.2d 785];

People

v.