Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
viewed with caution, considering the incentives to lie in order to avoid punishment or to shift blame to another person. Id. (citing Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451, 454 (Tex.Crim.App.1998)); Cantelon, 85 S.W.3d at 460 (noting same policy served by article 38.141 regarding informants); see Burton v. State, 442 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) (approving instruction). When the State relies upon testimony that is required by statute to be corroborated, it is error for the trial court not to instruct the jury that the defendant cannot be convicted on such testimony unless there is other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the offense and that evidence showing only the commission of the offense is insufficient. See, e.g., Herron v. State, 86 S.W.3d 621, 631 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) ; Saunders, 817 S.W.2d at 690 (same);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony must be carefully scrutinized weighed with great care and received with caution was plain and reversible error
B. holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error
C. holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error
D. holding failure to instruct jury as to requirement of corroboration of accomplice witness testimony was error
E. holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.