under section 22.011(f), not merely a punishment enhancement. Hernandez, 395 S.W.3d at 260-61. As an element of the offense, bigamous conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt during the guilt/innocence phase of trial. Id. The inclusion of the “void marriage” definition permitted the jury to convict appellant of a first-degree felony without finding a necessary element of the offense—that the victim was a person appellant was prohibited from marrying under the bigamy statute. The prosecution specifically relied on the “void marriage” instruction in its closing argument. As a result, appellant was deprived of a valuable right—the right to have a jury determination of every element of the alleged offense. See Riley v. State, 447 S.W.3d 918, 931 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2014, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); In re K.A., 420 S.W.3d 172, 177
holding that evidence as stipulated at a trial was sufficient to find beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was guilty under standard of jackson supra holding that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt holding that appellant was deprived of a fair trial where the jury was instructed in such a way that it was not required to find at least two elements of the offense of capital murder to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt holding that there was no error at all much less plain error in failing to instruct the jury that it was required to find drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt