for the proposition that “failure to establish ownership in the person or entity alleged as owner results in a failure of proof.” Dissent, at 112. However, both Freeman and Hudson were decided before the Court of Criminal Appeals rendered its decisions in Malik and Gollihar. Prior to these cases, the State was bound by the allegations in the charging instrument, regardless of the materiality of the allegations. See Freeman, 707 S.W.2d at 603 (“Of course, if the State alleges that such person is the ‘owner,’ it then has the burden of proof to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt, and a failure to prove that fact beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an acquittal being entered on behalf of the defendant.”); see also Commons v. State, 575 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (<HOLDING>). The “rule” enunciated in each of these cases
holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state holding that a property owner can make a claim against the state prior to the completion of the state action where statute says claim must be made within six months after completion of the action by the state holding that although state was not required by statute to allege the owner of property in prosecution for changing price tags on merchandise when state chose to make a descriptive averment of that person it was obligated to prove the allegation holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property holding that petitioners allegation that it is the owner of adjoining property does not satisfy the pleading requirement