This amended language not only returned the burden of establishing the basis for application of the accomplice witness rule to the accused in incest cases, it also reflects the seismic shift in the law regarding sexual assault cases between 1885 and the 1970s. This is particularly so when the incestuous act is between • a parent and child, beginning in childhood and continuing into adulthood. Consequently, the rule announced in Mercer and restated in Bolin was superseded by the 1973 amendments to the incest statute. Under Section 25.02 as it exists today, evidence merely establishing that the complainant was an adult and failed to complain or resist is not sufficient to establish that an incest victim was an accomplice. Cf. Smith v. State, 332 S.W.3d 428, 439-40 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (<HOLDING>). Rather, there must be affirmative proof
holding that it is not holding that the person who travels as an agent of person defrauded is a victim holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person holding that under the fifth amendment once an accused person in custody has expressed his or her desire to deal with the police only through counsel that person is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available  unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police holding a person is not an accomplice if the person knew about the offense and failed to disclose it or helped the accused conceal it