to connect defendant to offense, but failure to instruct jury in accordance with corroboration requirement for accomplice witness testimony was nevertheless harmful error). When the State elicits testimony from an accomplice for the purpose of proving a defendant’s guilt, the defendant is entitled to an instruction that a conviction cannot be based on the accomplice testimony unless the jury believes the testimony to be true, and unless there is other evidence tending to connect the defendant to the offense. Green v. State, 72 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2002, pet. ref'd) (citing Selman v. State, 807 S.W.2d 310, 311 (Tex.Crim.App.1991)). This rule serves the legislative policy reflected by article 38.14 that such testimony implicating another person should b 99 S.W.3d at 793 (<HOLDING>). Appellant concedes that no objection was made
holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial holding failure to instruct jury as to requirement of corroboration of accomplice witness testimony was error holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error holding that the failure to instruct on a definition or to amplify an element is not a failure to instruct on an essential element