People v. Walters

[328]

DRAPER, J.

Two indictments were returned against de- ■ fendant, one charging 21 counts of grand theft, and one 2 counts of forgery. The two cases were consolidated and tried to a jury, which found defendant guilty of all 23 charges. She appeals from the judgments and from order denying new trial.

Appellant was executive director of the Monterey County Housing Authority. The 21 thefts charged against her are based on misappropriations of housing authority funds effected by false claims presented and paid for labor and materials which in fact were not furnished to the authority. One Sorensen, a partner of Custom Interiors, had pleaded guilty to charges of theft and was a witness for the prosecution in the ease at bar. His testimony was that the authority cheeks issued to Custom Interiors in payment of these fraudulent invoices were endorsed by him for his firm and were delivered to appellant. Appellant deposited these cheeks to the authority account. It is the prosecution’s theory that she derived personal profit either by using such deposits to cover previous shortages in her accounts, or by substituting them for cash which she withdrew from authority funds. The principal evidence to support these theft charges is the testimony of Sorensen. Clearly he is an accomplice, and the convictions can be sustained only if his testimony is corroborated. (Pen. Code, § 1111.)

The accomplice need not be corroborated as to every fact to which he testifies.

(People

v.

Santo,

43 Cal.2d 319 [273 P.2d 249].) The corroborative evidence may be circumstantial and is sufficient, even though slight, if it tends to' connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.

(People

v.

Henderson,

34 Cal.2d 340 [209 P.2d 785].) The evidence tending to connect a defendant with the commission of the crime is adequate corroboration even though it may be slight and, standing by itself, entitled to but little consideration.