Rep., 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Thompson, 55 Tex.Crim. Rep.; 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Schwartz, 53 Tex. Crim. 451, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Poyner, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. Rep., 376; Givens, 35 Tex.Crim. Rep., 34 S.W. Rep., 626; Blanco, 57 S.W. Rep., 828.
" And as again laid down in section 873, subdivision 3, page 555: "If impeaching testimony can only be used by the jury to impeach a witness it is not necessary to charge on the subject at all. Brown v. State, 24 Texas Crim. App., 170, 5 S.W. Rep., 685; Magee v. State, 43 S.W. Rep., 512; Robinson v. State, 63 S.W. Rep., 869; Newman v. State, 70 S W. Rep., 951; Watson v. State, 52 Tex. Crim. 85, 105 S.W. Rep., 509; Waters v. State, 54 Tex. Crim. 322, 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Thompson v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 120, 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Schwartz v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 449, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Poyner v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. Rep., 376; Givens v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 563, 34 S.W. Rep., 626; Blanco v. State, 57 S.W. Rep., 828."
But there is no danger of a conviction for stealing a saddle and bridle under a charge of theft of a horse, or receiving said horse after it was stolen.' See also Thompson v. State, 55 Tex. Crim. 120, 113 S.W. Rep., 536; Waters v. State, 54 Tex. Crim. 327, 114 S.W. Rep., 628; Schwartz v. State, 53 Tex. Crim. 451, 111 S.W. Rep., 399; Watson v. State, 52 Tex. Crim. 90, 105 S.W. Rep., 509; Poyner v. State, 40 Tex. Crim. 640, 51 S.W. 376; Givens v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 563; Blanco v. State, 57 S.W. Rep., 828; Magee v. State, 43 S.W. Rep., 512; Robinson v. State, 63 S.W. Rep., 870; Newman v. State, 70 S.W. Rep., 953."
Citing several cases for support, appellant represents that "[f]or over a century Texas case law has . . . require[d] that the jury be charged that statements of the accomplice made out of court cannot be used to corroborate the accomplice." See Thompson v. State, 78 S.W. 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 1904); Barnard v. State, 76 S.W. 475 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903); Poyner v. State, 51 S.W. 376 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899); Clay v. State, 51 S.W. 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 1899). We agree these cases correctly state Texas law prohibiting an accomplice from corroborating her in-court testimony with out-of-court statements.
"The court did not permit any part of the conversation between the witness Alice Deckard and Katie Mae Deckard to be introduced in evidence." These bills do not show a violation of the rule announced in Pefferling v. State, 40 Tex. 487, and Poyner v. State, 40 Tex.Cr.R. 640, 51 S.W. 376. Appellee was entitled to prove that she made complaint. The bills do not show that she named the defendant as the rapist during her conversation with her mother.