evaluate the entire jury charge. See Warner, 245 S.W.3d at 461. The trial court is required to give the jury a written charge ‘setting forth the law applicable to the case; not expressing any opinion as to the weight of the evidence, not summing up the testimony, discussing the facts or using any argument in his charge calculated to arouse the sympathy or excite the passi 013 WL 1461841, at *7 (Tex.App—Corpus Christi 2013, pet. refd.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). However, even when an abstract charge is erroneously given on a theory of law, without specific application to the facts of the case, the court of criminal appeals have found this is not error. Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 297 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); see Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (<HOLDING>). In analyzing the jury charge as a whole, the
holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial holding failure to give abstract instruction defining capital murder was not error when constituent elements of murder were set forth at length in application paragraph holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction holding where school principal was struck while trying to stop student fight transferred intent operates to transfer students intent to commit simple battery on classmate thus negating conviction for attempted battery on school official which requires heightened level of intent holding there was no error in giving superfluous abstract instruction on transferred intent when the issue of transferred intent was not incorporated into the application paragraph