all); and (4) there is no definition of “substantial or motivating factor” by which a sufficiency review can be conducted in this case. Although I agree that the instruction was poorly phrased, I do not read it as loosely as the majority. Rather, I believe the “If you find ..., then you will find.... ” language is tantamount to saying, “If you do not find ..., then you will not find.... ” and, accordingly, that the third sentence of the instruction required a but-for standard of causation. Moreover, because I do not believe that the evidence identified in the majority opinion is sufficient to satisfy a but-for standard, I would sustain the State’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to prove causation. 1 . See Tex. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 637 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Nor do the first two sentences of the
holding that it is not the courts role to decide whether an experts opinion is correct holding that it was pure speculation that if the preference payment had not been made the vendor would have been included as a critical vendor and the court would have approved it holding that the core inquiry is whether the police would have discovered the evidence if the misconduct had not occurred holding that correct causation standard is whether employers action would not have occurred when it did had the employees protected communication not been made holding that it is not