A jury found Derrick Bernard Carr guilty of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, obstructing an officer, attempting to elude, two counts of disregarding a traffic control device, reckless driving, and speeding. The trial court denied his motion for a new trial. Carr appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence as to the cocaine possession charge and objecting to portions of the State’s closing argument. For reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. In an appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, and will affirm if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.”1 Viewed in this light, the evidence shows that Carr was driving a vehicle which became involved in a high-speed police chase after officers from the Pataula Drug Task Force and Seminole County Sheriff’s Department attempted to stop his vehicle. Carr and his passenger, Carlos Johnson, eventually fled the vehicle on foot, but were quickly apprehended by police. While running from police, Johnson discarded a bag of cocaine. Johnson testified at trial that the chase occurred while he and Carr were returning from Dothan, Alabama, where they had gone in order for Carr to purchase cocaine from a supplier Johnson knew.2 No cocaine was found in the vehicle or in Carr’s possession. Police did find over $1,100 in cash in the vehicle.
In two enumerations of error, Carr challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that he was improperly convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of his accomplice, Johnson. It is true that a defendant may not be convicted solely on the testimony of an accomplice; the accomplice’s testimony must be supported by some independent corroborating evidence.3 However, the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is a matter for the jury, and if the verdict is based upon the slightest evidence of corroboration connecting an accused to a crime, even if it is circumstantial, it is legally sufficient. The corroboration need not be sufficient to warrant a guilty verdict or prove every material element of the crime; it need only tend to connect and identify the defendant with the crime charged.4 Here, in addition to Johnson’s testimony, there was evidence of cocaine in the vicinity of the vehicle driven by Carr. We have previously held that the presence of cocaine near a vehicle in which the defendant was a passenger was sufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony that the defendant possessed the cocaine.5 And Carr fled from police, tending to show a consciousness of guilt, which also corroborates Johnson’s testimony.6 Under these circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find that Johnson’s testimony had been corroborated,7 and thus to conclude that Carr was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged.8
