S.W.2d 220, 223 (Tex.1988). 48 . Garza, 768 S.W.2d at 275-76. 49 . Brown, 764 S.W.2d at 223. 50 .Garza, 768 S.W.2d at 276. 51 . U.S. Const, amend. XIV, § 1. 52 . Tex. Const, art. I, § 19. 53 . 455 U.S. 745, 753-54, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). 54 . Id. at 754, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). 55 . Id. 56 . Id. at 758-59, 102 S.Ct. 1388. 57 . Id. at 759, 102 S.Ct. 1388. 58 . Id. 59 . Id. at 754, 102 S.Ct. 1388. 60 . In re C.H., 89 S.W.3d 17, 25 (Tex.2002). 61 . 455 U.S. at 754, 102 S.Ct. 1388. 62 . See 96 S.W.3d at 307 (Schneider, J., dissenting). 63 . See id. at 291 (Hankinson, J., dissenting). 64 . See id. at 298 (Hankinson, J., dissenting). 65 . See Ramos v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 784 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Tex.1990) (<HOLDING>) (citing Payne v. Snyder, 661 S.W.2d 134, 142
holding that when the jury finds facts that are so closely related to the omitted element that no rational jury could find those facts without also finding the omitted element this exercise amounts to the functional equivalent of the omitted element holding that if the omitted element  is supported by some evidence we must deem it found against fritolay under rule 279 holding that error is not harmless if the defendant contested the omitted element and raised evidence to support a contrary finding holding that we must affirm the jurys verdict against a sufficiency challenge if there is substantial evidence taking the view most favorable to the government to support it internal quotation marks omitted holding that the icaos decision should not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence