rule. 991 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). In Vick, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the Legislature intended each separately described act proscribed by section 22.021 to constitute a separate statutory offense. Id. at 832-33. Thus, in this case, submitting the charged offenses in the disjunctive made it possible for some of the jurors to have found that appellant guilty of digital penetration of J.C.’s sexual organ while other jurors chose to find appellant guilty of penetrating or contacting J.C.’s sexual organ with his sexual organ. Appellant was entitled to a unanimous jury verdict, and we hold that the trial court erred in submitting a disjunctive jury charge on the first assault. See Hendrix v. State, 150 S.W.3d 839, 848-49 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Having found error in the court’s charge on
holding that trial court erred in rendering takenothing judgment notwithstanding jurys verdict in favor of plaintiff based on defendants properly preserved charge error and concluding that proper remedy was for trial  court to grant new trial based on the charge error holding that the district court erred in failing to properly charge the jury on defendants affirmative defenses holding that courts erroneous disjunctive charge on one of several indictments against the appellant was harmful error under almanza standard because the erroneous charge made it possible for the jury to return a nonunanimous verdict holding that trial court erred in submitting depravity factor because evidence pointed to drug dispute as motive for killing holding that trial court erred in submitting disjunctive charge