the mouth of the child. Jury unanimity is required in all criminal cases. Ngo, 175 S.W.Sd at 745; Tex. Const, art. V, § 13; Tex.Code Ckim. PROC. Ann. art. 36.29(a) (Vernon 2006). “An unanimous jury verdict ensures that the jury agrees on the factual elements underlying an offense — it is more than mere agreement on a violation of a statute.” Francis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 121, 125 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). Each juror must agree that the defendant committed the “same, single, specific criminal act.” Ngo, 175 S.W.3d at 745. Jury unanimity is not violated when the jury is disjunctively instructed on alternate means or theories of committing the same offense. Martinez v. State, 129 S.W.3d 101, 103 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); see also Jefferson v. State, 189 S.W.3d 305, 313-14 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (<HOLDING>). However, if the charge disjunctively submits
holding due process does not require jury unanimity on particular act or omission submitted as alternate means of committing the conduct element of the offense of injury to a child holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial holding that knowledge element could not be deemed in favor of plaintiff where defendant objected to the omission of that element from the jury charge holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review holding that a mandatory presumption in a jury charge which directed a finding on an element of the criminal offense violated the due process clause