In People v. Tuggles (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 339, the Third Appellate District found the defendant's interpretation of the combined instructions to be a "tortured reading of CALCRIM Nos. 318 and 335" (id. at p. 365), going on to hold "CALCRIM Nos. 318 and 335 did not inform the jury that it could use an accomplice's out-of-court statements to corroborate his later testimony at trial. With the additional consideration of CALCRIM No. 301, we find that no reasonable jury could have understood the instructions to allow an accomplice to corroborate himself." (Tuggles, supra, at p. 366.)