A Defendant cannot be found guilty based on the testimony of an accomplice unless that testimony is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the Defendant with the commission of the offense. Corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the offense was committed or the circumstances of committing the offense.

You must be satisfied that there is some evidence, either direct or circumstantial, aside from the testimony of the accomplice, from which you may infer not only that the crime charged was committed, but that the Defendant was implicated in it. The corroborating evidence need not extend to every material point of the accomplice’s testimony nor be sufficient in itself to support a conviction.

The sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is for you to determine. If the testimony of an accomplice is corroborated, you have a right to consider all of that testimony the same as any other testimony in the case.

*****