In Barrera v. State, 756 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1988, pet. ref'd), the San Antonio Court of Appeals considered a jury charge containing language that is identical, other than the names of the accomplices, to that which was included in the jury charges in the present case and which is set forth above. See id. The court concluded: "As is evident from a reading of the . . . portion of the charge quoted above, the trial court did in fact charge the jury . . . that one accomplice could not corroborate another. That portion of the charge wherein the court instructed the jury that they could not convict appellant unless they believed there was testimony outside of the evidence given by the three accomplices that tended to connect the appellant with the offense is sufficient to inform the jury that one accomplice cannot corroborate another." Id.