In Ex parte Smith, 309 S.W.3d 53, 63 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010), the Court found that there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of Boone, the defendant's accomplice. Id. at 438.
The Court also discussed the jury charge in that case; specifically, we addressed Smith's issue claiming that the charge was erroneous because it asked the jury whether or not Boone was an accomplice as a matter of fact. Id. at 420.
The Court concluded that, because the record clearly demonstrated that Boone was charged with murdering the same individual that Smith was charged with murdering, Boone was an accomplice as a matter of law. Id. at 423.
Therefore, it was error to ask the jury whether he was an accomplice as a matter of fact. Id.