367, 369 (Tex.App.1993). Instead, courts have examined whether a jury verdict accords with “one continuous criminal episode.” See, e.g., Newland v. State, 882 S.W.2d 659, 662 (Tex.App.1994); Oggletree, 851 S.W.2d at 369. Courts determine whether a defendant’s conduct constitutes one continuous criminal episode on a case-by-case basis. See Newland, 882 S.W.2d at 662 (reasoning that any rational trier of fact could have determined that the use of a weapon after the theft occurred during the robbery because there were no “intervening circumstances”); Oggletree, 851 S.W.2d at 368, 370 (determining that “in the light most favorable to the verdict,” the evidence supported the finding that the defendant used his weapon while in flight); Thomas v. State, 708 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Tex.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). Although this case law is 'helpful in setting
holding that the state must establish that a legal situs of the offense was in delaware and that the reviewing court is required to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the existence of territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt holding that the circumstances permit a rational trier of fact to determine that the disputed assault occurred during the immediate flight holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a reviewing court must determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each of the essential elements of the crime charged holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt