This Court has held that a charge on accommodation agent is not required where, as here, the court's charge on entrapment fully protects the appellant's rights. Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849; Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 99; and Gonzales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 505 S.W.2d 267. Further, I am not persuaded that the statute, by definition, eliminates the concept of accommodation agent.
Even assuming a charge on accommodation agency would have been proper, the court's charge on entrapment fully protected appellant's rights. Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849, and Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 499 S.W.2d 99. Ground of error number three urges that the Court erred in refusing a charge on accomplice witness.
Compare Senn v. State, 494 S.W.2d 836, where we stated that similar testimony raised the issue, and the court properly charged thereon. Further, the error was not cured by a charge on the issue of entrapment as it wan in Sosa v. State, 494 S.W.2d 849. The trial court also rejected appellant's requested charge on entrapment. For the reason stated, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
The record before us, approved by counsel for appellant, reflects that a timely filed objection or written request instruction was not presented to the trial court for consideration. The record must reflect that objection and requested instructions are filed in a timely manner; therefore, appellant's grounds relating to the court's charge have not been properly presented for our review. Mosley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 490 S.W.2d 842; Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849. See Articles 36.15 and 36.16, V.A.C.C.P.
' In Sosa v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 494 S.W.2d 849, this Court on May 23, 1973, held that even if the issue of accommodation agent is raised by the evidence, the failure of the court to charge thereon is not reversible where the court charged on entrapment. We overrule appellant's first contention.