With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — possibly believing that Adrian started the fatal events in motion and was primarily responsible for the death that ultimately transpired — and chose to find Jermarxian guilty only of manslaughter. Thus, having been told to review each charge separately, but not having been told to harmonize its findings, the jury was not to consider any potential inconsistency in its verdicts. Because of this, we cannot say that the jury did not rely on the improper party offense to find Appellant guilty of murder based on an improper party offense. As we have already noted, such “an individualized assessment of -Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (concluding egregious harm shown when some of alternative theories in charge permitted conviction for conduct not defined as an offense); Guevara, 191 S.W.3d at 210 (<HOLDING>). We therefore sustain appellant’s second

A: holding egregious harm resulted from erroneous jury instruction authorizing conviction based on legally inadequate theory
B: holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory
C: holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
D: holding egregious harm standard applied where appellant failed to object to lack of instruction on accomplice witness testimony
A.