In appellant’s trial for robbery, the court allowed the testimony of an accomplice who was the driver of the getaway car. The trial court instructed that he was an accomplice as a matter of law. Appellant contended on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. There was independent evidence that the defendants were in possession of the stolen jewelry, which was direct physical evidence not relying on witness credibility. Further, there was independent evidence which linked the defendants to stolen money. Finally, the relationship between the defendants and their conduct after the crime could be taken into consideration by the jury in determining sufficiency of the corroboration.