A lien is fraudulent if the person who files it has actual knowledge that the lien was not valid at the time it was filed. The jury answered “no.” In reviewing this challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we consider and weigh all of the evidence and set aside the judgment only if it is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex.1986). When, as here, there was no objection to the charge, we review the sufficiency of the evidence according to the charge actually given and not based on some other unidentified law. Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 313 (Tex.2006); Osterberg v. Peca, 12 S.W.3d 31, 55 (Tex.2000); see also City of Fort Worth v. Zimlich, 29 S.W.3d 62, 71 (Tex.2000) (<HOLDING>). In arguing that the evidence is factually
holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction holding that issue of inadequate jury instruction was waived because the instruction given was the one expressly requested by defense counsel holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding good faith jury instruction is not necessary when the court has given an adequate specific intent instruction