decision under the second prong, the court evaluates the evidence in the context of the entire record, but does not consider whether the evidence is credible, controverted, or in conflict with other evidence. Hall v. State, 158 S.W.3d 470, 473 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). In this case, the jury could have chosen to disbelieve the complainant’s testimony that Blissit pointed the gun at him while believing Bonnie’s testimony that Blissit merely swept the gun across the room. The jury also could have believed the gun discharged as a result of Bonnie’s actions in holding or hitting Blissit’s arm. See Hayes v. State, 728 S.W.2d 804, 810 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (noting discharge of gun during struggle presents circumstances under which charge of reckless conduct is appropriate); Isaac, 167 S.W.3d at 475 (<HOLDING>). Having reviewed the record, we conclude that
holding deadly conduct instruction required where jury could believe that gun discharged when the defendants stepbrother tackled the defendant while grabbing the defendants hand holding that the defendant could not appeal a jury instruction where he did not object to the challenged instruction but in fact requested it and stated he was satisfied with it holding direct testimony tying a defendant to a gun was not required when the gun was found in the defendants truck and when the defendant had both ammunition for the gun and a rack in which it could have been kept holding a district courts failure to give a same decision instruction harmless because the evidence before the jury strongly supported the conclusion that the plaintiffs were discharged in retaliation for their overtime complaints and that they would not have been discharged had they not engaged in this protected conduct holding that evidence was sufficient to prove defendant constructively possessed the gun where although defendant denied ownership of the gun it was found near a knife of which defendant claimed ownership and where defendant was aware of the presence of the gun