aggravating circumstances listed in Section 19.03(a) are “alternate theories” of committing the same capital murder offense. Kitchens v. State, 823 S.W.2d 256, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Thus, when a single capital murder offense is alleged, the jury may be charged disjunctively and is not required to unanimously agree.about which aggra vating circumstance applies. Id. This is true regardless of whether the aggravating circumstances are found in the same or different Section 19.03(a) subsections. Gamboa v. State, 296 S.W.3d 574, 584 (Tex.Crim.App.2009). Further, the jury is not required to unanimously agree on the aggravating circumstance even when the conduct constituting the aggravating circumstance involves different victims. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 317, 341-42 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (<HOLDING>); Cabrialez v. State, No. 13-04-163-CR, 2006 WL
holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternative aggravating circumstance of burglary involving two different victims holding that where a jury returned with a unanimous finding of no proximate cause but could not reach a unanimous finding on the question of negligence the jury verdict was simple to harmonize and such a finding compelled a judgment for defendant internal quotation marks omitted holding jury verdict unanimous where jury was charged with alternate aggravating circumstance of robbery or burglary against any one of five named victims holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case holding jury trial waiver valid although district court did not inform defendant of right to unanimous verdict