Cal. Codes » Penal Code / PART 2. OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE / TITLE 7. OF PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TRIAL AND BEFORE JUDGMENT / CHAPTER 2. The Trial
California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 1111 (2026)

The Trial

✓ leginfo export of Sept. 26, 2026 (applied Oct. 1, 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A conviction can not 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.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 284 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 1884–2025 · leading case: People v. Belton, 591 P.2d 485 (Cal. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Belton, 591 P.2d 485 (Cal. 1979). · cites it 8× “First, Penal Code section 1111 should be interpreted to be applicable to the hearsay evidence of the accomplice's prior statements that are inconsistent with the accomplice's in-court testimony, but without construing the term "testimony" as including such unsworn hearsay…”
People v. Rangel, 367 P.3d 649 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 1111 [“A conviction can not be had upon the testimony of *1222 an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense .”
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008). · cites it 2× “§ 16-89-111(e)(1) (1977); Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1111 (West 1985); Ga.”
People v. Manson, 61 Cal. App. 3d 102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 1111.) [23] (7) The character and nature of corroborative evidence may be very general and may vary according to the circumstances of each case.”
People v. Cooks, 141 Cal. App. 3d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “Penal Code section 1111 provides, in part: “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…”
People v. Szeto, 623 P.2d 213 (Cal. 1981). · cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 1111.) As a result, they jerry-build independent corroboration for accomplice testimony and by implication let stand a ruling that a person may be qualified as an expert and testify as an expert on the credibility of hearsay declarants.”
People v. Gordon, 516 P.2d 298 (Cal. 1973). · cites it 6× “Penal Code section 1111 defines an accomplice 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.”
People v. Hoyt, 456 P.3d 933 (Cal. 2020). “16 Penal Code section 1111 provides that an accomplice’s testimony cannot support a conviction without corroboration by 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…”
People v. Slaughter, 47 P.3d 262 (Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “The Legislature has determined that because of the reliability questions posed by certain categories of evidence, evidence in those categories by itself is insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction.”
People v. Freeman, 882 P.2d 249 (Cal. 1994). · cites it 2× “) To be sure, there was evidence that Horton was an accessory to the crimes; she admitted that she disposed of the murder weapon. (See Pen. Code, § 32.) That no doubt explains why she was given immunity for her testimony.”
People v. Gibson, 56 Cal. App. 3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 4× “(Pen. Code, § 1111.) Defendant argues that the presence of these persons at the scene of the crime, and their failure to prevent the crime, as well as their subsequent arrest, constituted evidence that they were, in fact, accomplices.”
People v. Yarber, 90 Cal. App. 3d 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “'s engaging in oral copulation is premised on her "aiding and abetting" Wendol by encouraging Mary to orally copulate him, then Mary may have been an accomplice, depending on the jury determination of her capacity to commit the crime, and the court, therefore, should have, on…”
Show all 284 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.