With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conviction could be used to enhance the punishment for a future offense. Therefore, the evidence was not subject to exclusion on due process grounds, and this portion of the State’s point of error is sustained. Sufficiency of the Evidence The briefs of the parties also dispute whether, to elevate a second family assault offense to a felony, a prior assault conviction must affirmatively reflect on the judgment that it was committed against a family or household member, i. e., n Supp.2002). A prior assault on a family or household member is a sentence enhancement, rather than an element of the offense, because the operative statutory language is prefaced with the phrase, "iE it-'is shown on the trial of the offense....” See Wilson v. , State, 772 S.W.2d 118, 121-22 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Tex.Code Crim. .Proc. Ann. art.

A: holding that two offenses are separate for the purposes of  4a12a1 where all the elements of the first offense occurred before any activity forming the basis of the second offense
B: recognizing that throughout penal code elements of offenses are prefaced with phrase a person commits an offense if whereas sentence enhancements are prefaced by if it be shown on the trial of
C: holding that in the conviction and sentencing for criminal offenses committed in the course of one criminal episode it is the intent of the legislature that there be a separate conviction and sentence for each criminal offense unless one of the offenses is a degree of the other a necessarily included lesser offense subsumed in the other or both offenses are identical
D: holding that all the elements necessary to prove a crime charged under the hawaii penal code must be shown to have occurred after its effective date
B.