issues and weight of probative evidence, the argument of counsel and any other relevant information revealed by the record of the trial as a whole.” Almanza, 686 S.W.2d at 171; see generally Hutch, 922 S.W.2d at 172-74. The purpose of this review is to illuminate the actual, not just theoretical, harm to the accused. Almanza 686 S.W.2d at 174. Egregious harm is a difficult standard to prove and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Ellison v. State, 86 S.W.3d 226, 227 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Hutch, 922 S.W.2d at 171. Because four separate offenses were submitted as one, it is impossible to tell whether the jury unanimously found all of the facts for each or even one of the offenses. Thus, it is possible that the jury returned a nonunanimous verdict. See Hendrix, 150 S.W.3d at 849 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, in this case, the trial court’s
holding that an erroneous charge on sanity was harmless because it was beneficial to appellant holding that trial court erred in submitting disjunctive charge 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 holding that courts erroneous disjunctive charge on one of several indictments against the appellant was harmful error under almanza standard because the erroneous charge made it possible for the jury to return a nonunanimous verdict holding that although appellant filed a proposed jury charge appellant did not preserve error because trial court did not endorse proposed charge and appellant did not call trial courts attention to the portions of the proposed charge that were complained about on appeal