for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to show venue was proper in Fort Bend County. Appellant’s second point of error complains that venue in Fort Bend County was improper because the venue facts established at trial were insufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant attempted to use his perjurious testimony in Fort Bend County. Venue in a criminal case need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, which may be either direct or circumstantial. Tex.Code CRim. Proc. Ann. art. 13.17 (Vernon 1977); Black v. State, 645 S.W.2d 789, 790 (Tex.Crim.App.1983). This is so even though the jury — as in this case — is erroneously charged that venue must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). Evidence is sufficient to establish venue if,
holding that sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction is not measured by the jury charge actually given but rather measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct charge holding that the sufficiency of evidence to prove malice as an element of negligent credentialing as contrasted from exemplary damages would be measured by the clear and convincing evidence standard provided in the charge submitted even though the law only required it to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence holding that sufficiency of the evidence is measured against a hypothetically correct jury charge holding when no objection is made to jury issue sufficiency of the evidence is measured against charge given by court rather than some other unidentified law holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error