of the offense. Brown, 159 S.W.3d at 711; Torres, 137 S.W.3d at 196; Cantelon, 85 S.W.3d at 461. To determine the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence, we first eliminate the testimony of the covert witness and ask whether other inculpatory evidence tends to connect the accused to the commission of the offense, even if it does not directly link the accused to the crime. See Cantelon, 85 S.W.3d at 461 (citing McDuff v. State, 939 S.W.2d 607, 612 (Tex.Crim.App.1997)). We must view the corroborating evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. See id. (citing Knox v. State, 934 S.W.2d 678, 686-87 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)). No precise rule can be formulated regarding the amount of evidence re 732, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas May 20, 2004, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Woods v. State, No. 12-02-00296-CR, 2004 WL
holding informants testimony of actual transfer of a controlled substance sufficiently corroborated by testimony of dea agents that informant was given 150 to make controlled buy and by video recording made by informant that showed him buying two 50 rocks from defendant holding that the defendants offer of proof which consisted only of a tape recording and a private investigators affidavit did not satisfy the defendants preliminary burden under franks without the offering of other sworn testimony or reliable evidence holding where tape corroborated by independent testimony of two police officers and where defendant did not challenge accuracy of recording court did not err in admitting tape despite prosecutions failure to authenticate it holding that testimony regarding outofcourt identification was inadmissible where the state failed to ask the witnesses about the identification during its direct examination holding officers identification of defendants voice on tape recording of phone call setting up controlled buy sufficient to corroborate informants testimony regarding subsequent buy