Whether the trial court's failure to provide a requested jury instruction on an accomplice's testimony requires reversal of a criminal conviction when the majority opinion broadens the scope of evidence and ignores applicable legal principles

a cVxnp/\ 4rUe. principle. -lluxA C\ on AUe uncarrobara-t^d -te.s4t Cour4A rt(jt i in COAtyicVion C-ann^l be. bad o4 an accomplrcet Kv\c.»a y sec oc c»a %3vH-<4-g; Anal 4a!\e<J 4o gi^d +L4 invvruetton M 4ke conclusion oA AWd jury cWarjt And Htmln^'S CauASel rc5^C t/ed otyec-tfon tor appeal AKa4 4kd Anal Courts failure 4o charge as rd^ues4^d retires rei/crsai 4UiS TWe imajori4y opinion Ignores bo+k import and affl.caWe principle 4 U* and n Key il^erencc bc4u,e€n +(Vri Case and ike CO^d.cWs C^eJn^ <Un. ^jor-,4, opinio/, W£«U S 4ke i+^u4^ Prfrttfpltf on whfcK r <mir>^5 4o charge \5 based I The phrasing <?| 4he m-y.ri+y opinion's holding and 4he phrasing In -J^lns , do vhW +6 -Vne Srta-Vulory principle in «ld e-f which Vhe revested ch should he 4he fna>r, +y holds 4ka+ ikerc is no ntgj | * <™*e. U)Vere 4ke S+ade relief on odber e^We , IncUl 4e4eA<UnVs CervPeSVw* a Dari ii fTht c*w cl+ti in • < , > fe *'Can*l~e toV <\w x , ^ ‘Wl*5We aMI ^ ^ (IW vWse Jdill) (Hid) ujhere 4bis Cff«r4 held 4Uv 4u cW, required because (f 4K Iht majority opinion in -Vhls cast broaiem 4\e Scope <4 4h* evidence Uilnich obmdeS 4he need -for 4heo ,Vy ehcL $rotn ■“ <hW u)Hrt«*e6 -Vo 4b OWdo* V.S+A+e Il>h Qia hP 310ConViCMon ,an Ary€ or n3 A ums k\o4 Were £-(W u/i+AesVS lo 4ke Cr?m^ ; ere € CHvnd 4a olk*r -em'd^ce 11 _ 5E <?d 3.31 CH15), M+ach* £6 4K< lury 4 c^kbuyeofiardir hr, ,>ArntA Robbery tor both C«tuH 0*X) 4 ^4r f * *9 9gr^l/4frn^ C;>C4/h Seance 5 H0C6.4 A/oUAUach ; Xs -tke A ■i' A