These allegations sufficiently allege aiding and abetting on the theory that Burum and Erwin usedthreats, menaces, commandor coercion to compel Postmusand Bianeto acceptthe bribes. In sum, Clapp should be overruled, or limited to section 1111. In any event it was improperly applied here. Counts 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8 should be reinstated, because section 31 expansively defines aiding and abetting liability, and there is no bribery exception.

(Pen. Code § 1111.) A reviewing court must eliminate from consideration the accomplicetesti- mony and then determine whether the corroborative evidence has a substantial connection fo the crime.

31RT 4579-4593.) 188 B. Appellant’s Claim is Meritless Section 1111, which governs the treatment of accomplice testimony, states: A conviction cannot be had uponthe 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 circumstancesthereof. This Court has held “the general rules requiring accomplice instructions apply at the penalty phase as well as the guilt phase of a capital trial” for “the defendant’s unadjudicated prior criminal conduct.”

“[I]t is the duty of the trial court in a criminal case to give, on its own motion,instructions on the pertinent principles of law regarding accomplice testimony ‘ “... wheneverthe testimony given upon the trial is sufficient to warrant the conclusion upon the part of the jury that a 99999witness implicating a defendant was an accomplice... (People v. Gordon (1973) 10 Cal.3d 460, 466, fn. omitted.) Penal Code Section 1111 states in part: “An accomplice is hereby defined as one whois liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the 484 accomplice is given.” There islittle doubt that the witnesses were liable for the criminal acts charged.

B. Argument. This Court has held, citing Penal Code section 1111, that accomplice testimonyis inadmissible absent corroboration. (People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557, 628; see also People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 1000 [when prosecutor presents accomplice witness testimony at penalty phase regarding a defendant’s alleged prior violent conduct there must be corroboration ofthat testimony].)

Garcia also makes clear that the liability of the aider and abettor requires proof that he was a principal in the offense, i.e., that he knew of the criminal purpose of the person who committed the crime and he intended to, and did in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the commission of this crime. (Pen. Code, § 1111; People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Ca1.3d 72, 90-91.) "The fact that a witness has been charged or held to answer for the same crimes as the defendant and then has been granted immunity does not necessarily establish that he or she is an accomplice.