to all the elements of the offense.” See Cornet v. State, 417 S.W.3d 446, 451 (Tex.Crim.App.2013). For several reasons, that general rule does not apply here. First, the only evidence‘that appellant “admitted” to the offense was t finding' that the use of deadly force was justified. Jose’s weakened state, the out-of-reach storage of his untouched and unloaded gun, and the uncharacteristic pouring of bleach on another person all betray a suggestion that the jury would have accepted a claim of self-defense. Finally, the jury’s rejection of..a short punishment in favor of life imprisonment— the maximum permitted by law — indicates that the jury believed that appellant was significantly blameworthy. Compare Dugar v. State, 464 S.W.3d 811, 822 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, pet ref'd) (<HOLDING>), with State v. Warden, No. PD-1502-10, 2011 WL
holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury holding that trial court erred in granting plea in bar as to murder when prior to receipt and publication of fact that jury could not reach a verdict on murder count jury had indicated in notes to the trial court that it had acquitted defendant of murder and holding that there was no verdict until it was received and published in open court holding that there was no error where one instruction did not inform the jury that in order to convict defendant of attempted murder the evidence must show that defendant had a specific intent to commit murder but where subsequent instruction did inform jury of this requirement and concluding that the instructions when read as a whole adequately informed the jury of the requirement of specific intent to kill holding that the erroneous omission of a selfdefense instruction was harmful in part because the jury sentenced the murder defendant to twelve years imprisonmentindicating a belief that the murder defendant was not significantly blameworthy