v. Alexander, 240 Kan. 273, 729 P.2d 1126, 1135-36 (1986); Babin, 319 So.2d at 380; Erdman v. State, 315 Md. 46, 553 A.2d 244, 250 (1989); Commonwealth v. Biancardi, 656 N.E.2d 1234, 1234 (Mass.1995); Campbell, 515 S.W.2d at 456; Blake v. State, 121 Nev. 779, 121 P.3d 567, 575-76 (2005) (en banc) (stating that the instruction should be given, but a failure to do so does not warraiit reversal unless prejudice is shown); State v. Lister, 122 N.H. 603, 448 A.2d 395, 399 (1982) (citing Novosel v. Helgemoe, 118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124, 130 (1978)); State v. Krol, 68 N.J. 236, 344 A.2d 289, 304-05 (1975); People v. Hays, 132 A.D.2d 620, 517 N.Y.S.2d 775, 777 (1987); State v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1, 224 S at 1135-36 (approving of the instruction required by statute); Babin, 319 So.2d at 380 (<HOLDING>); Campbell, 515 S.W.2d at 456 (recognizing that
holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that it was prejudicial error to fail to give such a cautionary instruction even where the defendant did not object at trial to the lack of such an instruction when the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated holding the fairly explicit dictate of the louisiana criminal code required the instruction as opposed to earlier cases such as state v plaisance 252 la 212 210 so2d 323 32627 1968 which held such an instruction was unnecessary holding good faith jury instruction unnecessary when court gave adequate specific intent instruction