is entitled to proof beyond a reasonable doubt during the adjudicatory stage when charged with an act that would constitute a crime if committed by an adult. See In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). We do not resolve but only note the potential tension in applying our civil standard of review. 12 . 961 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.App.—Houston [1 st Dist.] 1997), aff'd, 988 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.1999). 13 . 792 S.W.2d 564, 565 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1990, no writ). 14 . See In re A.L.S., 915 S.W.2d 114, 117 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ) (stating that it would apply a harmless error analysis when the trial court uses imprecise language while giving the explanations required by section 54.03(b)); In re O.L., 834 S.W.2d 415, 420 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 15 . See In re M.R.R., 929 S.W.2d 687, 689
holding that harmful error analysis does apply to defects in an explanation required by section 5403b holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis holding that the presumption of soundness does not apply to congenital defects holding that harm analysis should not be conducted when none of the explanations required by section 5403b are given holding that federal appellate courts are authorized to engage in constitutional harmless error analysis in the first instance when a state appellate court does not undertake such an analysis and that such error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt