between the time he stopped and the time he fled with Kennedy; instead, she testified that Appellant was "smirking” at her during this period. 4 . This analysis provokes the question of why the legislature included both the phrase "acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense” and the phrase "solicits, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense” in section 7.02(a)(2)’s definition of party liability. One reason is that in some situations, an actor may aid another in the commission of an offense without intending that an offense be committed if the actor does not know the other’s conduct is an offense; under that circumstance, the actor is not a party to the offense. See, e.g., Amaya v. State, 733 S.W.2d 168, 175 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Such lack of knowledge is not a factor in a
holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced holding that allegations that defendants designed and implemented improper accounting practices failed to state claim for securities fraud in absence of allegations of particular facts demonstrating how defendants knew of scheme at time they made their statements of compliance that they knew the financial statements overrepresented the companys true earnings or that they were aware of a gaap violation holding that defendants failed to carry burden of proof to show that plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages when among other things they offered no evidence contradicting the plaintiffs evidence holding that creditors could not seek relief from a bankruptcy stay because they were not the real parties in interest and lacked standing as they were not holders of the notes and failed to establish that mers was the holder or had authority to transfer the notes holding defendants could not be guilty as parties when the state failed to show they knew the criminality of the conduct they assisted