Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and the State offered no other evidence that linked his house to a cocaine transaction. Id. No other witnesses testi fied that Farr entered Young’s house or that a cocaine transaction took place there. Id. at 452. As for the tape recording, the court concluded that without Farr’s testimony to identify Young’s voice, there was nothing to connect him to the voices on the tape, and the tape showed nothing more than the “commission of an offense.” Id. (citing Tex.Code Crim. Proo. Ann. art. 38.141). Noting that no other evidence in the record tended to connect Young to the offense, the court held the evidence to be legally insufficient to support the conviction and rendered a judgment of acquittal. Id.; see also Williams v. State, 864 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1993, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). When we eliminate Baccus’s testimony, we are 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that no seizure occurred where the defendant initially stopped in compliance with a police officers order but then drove off quickly before the police officer could reach the suspects car (B) holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c (C) holding corroborating evidence sufficient that officer drove informant to defendants house saw defendant admit informant and saw informant come out with drugs and defendants voice was identified on audio tape of transaction (D) holding enhancement applicable where the record supported conclusion that drugs were stored and cut in the same location as the guns even though a search of the location yielded no drugs (E) holding evidence that police officer drove informant to location and waited outside while transaction occurred insufficient to corroborate informants identification of defendant as person from whom he purchased drugs
Output (English): holding that testimony by police officer to effect that informant told him that defendant and his accomplice had come to informants home and discussed purchase of five kilograms of cocaine was not hearsay because statement was made by informant who was authorized by defendant to communicate such information to police officer under rule 801e2c