the trial court committed reversible error. We disagree. There is a split among the appellate courts on whether including language from the Geesa instruction in the jury charge is error. Cases holding it is not error to include language from Geesa are: Jackson v. State, 105 S.W.3d 321, 325 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet. h.); Fluellen v. State, 104 S.W.3d 152, 164 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet. h.); Minor v. State, 91 S.W.3d 824, 829 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. ref'd); Brown v. State, 91 S.W.3d 353, 358 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2002, no pet.); and Carriere v. State, 84 S.W.3d 753, 759 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. refd). Cases holding it is error to include language from Geesa are: Rodriguez v. State, 96 S.W.3d 398, 405-06 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>); and Phillips v. State, 72 S.W.3d 719, 721
holding exclusion was harmless error holding it was error to include language from geesa but such error was harmless recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding it was error to include language from geesa in absence of agreement between state and defense but such error caused no harm holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error