Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the application portion of the charge, it did not include them in the abstract portion of the charge setting forth the substantive law of indecency with a child. Moreover, the charge included the required specific intent to arouse or gratify in the application portion, along with the erroneous “intentionally and knowingly” language. The charge also correctly addressed extraneous offense evidence, the indictment, statements of the court and of counsel, the presumption of innocence, the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given their testimony, and the burden of proof. Consequently, within the context of the entire jury charge, the erroneous application paragraph appears less harmful. See id.; see also Fulcher v. State, 274 S.W.3d 713, 718-19 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2008, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Regarding the state of the evidence, the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm (B) holding that sentencing error did not affect defendants substantial rights because error did not result in longer term of imprisonment (C) holding that error in omitting requisite mental state from application paragraph of charge did not result in egregious harm (D) holding charge error which authorized jury to convict without finding every requisite element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt was egregious based on the entirety of the charge the contested evidence and the arguments of counsel (E) holding jury charge error consisting of disjunctive submission of three separate sexual assault offenses without unanimity instruction caused egregious harm to defendant
Output (English): holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm