With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to support the verdict. Cantelon, 85 S.W.3d at 460 (citing Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (declining to impose legal and factual sufficiency standards upon a review of accomplice witness testimony under article 38.14)). Likewise, legal and factual sufficiency standards of review are not applicable to a review of sufficiency of covert witness testimony under article 38.141. Brown v. State, 159 S.W.3d 703, 711 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 485, 163 L.Ed.2d 369 (2005); see also Torres, 137 S.W.3d at 196. The corroborating evidence requirement is satisfied if there is some other evidence that tends to connect the accused to the commi 9893, at *2 (Tex.App.-Tyler May 12, 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, in Young v. State, the First

A: holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c
B: recognizing affiants averments that informant had assisted police in apprehension of another drug felon in determining reliability of informant
C: holding that information from confidential informant was reliable and credible where affidavit referred to previous instances in which informant provided correct information to police affiants own investigation and controlled buy of contraband confirmed information and second informant supplied same information to police
D: holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction
D.