With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". their fourth issue, Appellees assert that legally and factually insufficient evidence exists to support the jury’s finding in question 6 that a joint enterprise existed between LMS and Hospital. Specifically, Appellees challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the second two elements of joint enterprise: (3) a community of pecuniary interest in the common purpose of the enterprise among the members; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, which gives an equal right of control. The Texas Supreme Court has addressed legal sufficiency challenges to the third element, the eommunity-of-pecuni-ary-inter est-in-the-common-purpose-of-the-enterprise element, of a jury’s joint enterprise finding in several cases. See St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 531-33 (<HOLDING>); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608,

A: holding evidence legally insufficient
B: recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof
C: holding evidence legally sufficient under sections d and e
D: holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement
A.