With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". indict on the case, Dallas refused to hear the case, and they had evidence to the contrary.” James was then asked, "And so when they came to you the first time, they told you, Dallas County didn’t want to have anything to do with this.” James responded, "Basically, yeah.” 4 . Appellant does not argue Raquel is an accomplice to the offense or treat her as such in his brief, although the State asserts she is. Even if she is an accomplice, an issue we need not decide, the Facebook evidence is proper corroborating evidence. See Maynard v. State, 166 S.W.3d 403, 413-14 (Tex.App.Austin 2005, pet. ref’d) (using one accomplice’s out-of-court statement to corroborate another accomplice witness's testimony); see also Johnson v. State, 354 S.W.3d 491, 495 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>). 5 . Both the Revised Civil Statutes and the

A: holding jury cannot return any verdict except acquittal when evidence is insufficient to corroborate accomplice witness
B: holding suspicion that some combination of individuals participated in five robberies was insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony
C: holding that uncorroborated accomplice testimony may provide the exclusive basis for a criminal conviction
D: recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony
D.