reason for the inconsistency would be based on either pure speculation, or would require inquiries into the jury’s deliberations that courts generally do not undertake.” Powell, 469 U.S. at 66, 105 S.Ct. 471. We can do neither. For these reasons, looking only to appellant’s charge without considering Jermar-xian’s charge or verdict, we hold that the charge error affected the very basis of the case and deprived appellant of a valuable right; it authorized the jury to convict him of a murder committed by someone else without requiring the jury to find the elements of party responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt; this is not an offense under the laws of our state. This error was so harmful that appellant was effectively denied a fair and impartial trial. See Sanchez, 209 S.W.3d at 121 (<HOLDING>); Hammock v. State, 211 S.W.3d 874, 879
holding that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the constitution holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding charge error which authorized jury to convict without finding every requisite element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt was egregious based on the entirety of the charge the contested evidence and the arguments of counsel 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 holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm