With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". harm based in part on the prosecutor’s and trial judge’s affirmative misstatements of the law as permitting a “mix and match” verdict. Id. at 751. Similarly, in Clear v. State, an aggravated sexual assault of a child case, the court found egregious harm based in part on the prosecutor’s erroneous statements to the jury in closing argument that, “four of you could decide ... [the State has] proven the finger penetration ... [a]nother four of you could say ... [the State has] proven everything [a]nd the remaining four of you could say ... I believe the State proved that there was penile penetration ... [y]ou don’t all have to agree on which manner we’ve proven it to you, as long as we’ve proven one of these.” Clear v. State, 76 S.W.3d 622, 623-24 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Unlike in Ngo and Clear, the De Los Santos

A: holding jury charge error consisting of disjunctive submission of three separate sexual assault offenses without unanimity instruction caused egregious harm to defendant
B: holding that trial court erred in submitting disjunctive charge
C: holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury
D: holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm
A.