harm based in part on the prosecutor’s and trial judge’s affirmative misstatements of the law as permitting a “mix and match” verdict. Id. at 751. Similarly, in Clear v. State, an aggravated sexual assault of a child case, the court found egregious harm based in part on the prosecutor’s erroneous statements to the jury in closing argument that, “four of you could decide ... [the State has] proven the finger penetration ... [a]nother four of you could say ... [the State has] proven everything [a]nd the remaining four of you could say ... I believe the State proved that there was penile penetration ... [y]ou don’t all have to agree on which manner we’ve proven it to you, as long as we’ve proven one of these.” Clear v. State, 76 S.W.3d 622, 623-24 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Unlike in Ngo and Clear, the De Los Santos
holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury holding that charge error that allowed jury to convict appellant for an unindicted offense caused egregious harm holding jury charge error consisting of disjunctive submission of three separate sexual assault offenses without unanimity instruction caused egregious harm to defendant holding that trial court erred in submitting disjunctive charge holding egregious harm resulted from erroneous jury instruction authorizing conviction based on legally inadequate theory