dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority says the “corroborating evidence in this case is limited,” and I agree. Some corroborating evidence is all the law requires. See Hernandez v. State, 939 S.W.2d 173, 178 (Tex.Crim.App.1997).
*825Noting that the corroboration rule is “statutorily imposed” and “is not derived from federal or state constitutional principles,” the Court of Criminal Appeals has declined to impose a standard sufficiency review. Cathey v. State, 992 S.W.2d 460, 462-63 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). “It is not necessary that the corroborating evidence directly connect the defendant to the crime or that it be sufficient by itself to establish guilt; it need only tend to connect the defendant to the offense.” Id., at 462. Circumstances that are “apparently insignificant may constitute sufficient evidence of corroboration.” Malone v. State, 253 S.W.3d 253, 257 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). “ ‘Tendency to connect’ rather than rational sufficiency is the standard!.]” Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).
Sergeant Womack testified that before the purchase, the officers checked the informant to make sure he had no contraband, and they gave him money to make the purchase. The transaction was recorded on audio-tape. The informant returned with drugs. His voice can be heard on the audio-tape as he counts the money during the transaction. The jury heard the audio-tape in which the person talking to the informant identified himself as “Blue.” Sergeant Womack testified the defendant was known as “Blue.” Although the informant’s out-of-court statement identifying the defendant in a photograph would not be sufficient corroboration by itself, Sergeant Womack testified further that he determined through his investigation that it was King who sold the informant the narcotics. Although King objected to Womack’s testimony at trial, he does not argue in this appeal that the trial court’s overruling of his objection was error. Though the evidence is limited, the issue is whether “there is any evidence that tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.” See Solomon, 49 S.W.3d at 361 (emphasis added). In my view, the statute is satisfied in this case by the audio-tape and Sergeant Womack’s testimony.