their fourth issue, Appellees assert that legally and factually insufficient evidence exists to support the jury’s finding in question 6 that a joint enterprise existed between LMS and Hospital. Specifically, Appellees challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the second two elements of joint enterprise: (3) a community of pecuniary interest in the common purpose of the enterprise among the members; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, which gives an equal right of control. The Texas Supreme Court has addressed legal sufficiency challenges to the third element, the eommunity-of-pecuni-ary-inter est-in-the-common-purpose-of-the-enterprise element, of a jury’s joint enterprise finding in several cases. See St. Joseph Hosp., 94 S.W.3d at 531-33 (<HOLDING>); Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Able, 35 S.W.3d 608,
holding evidence was legally insufficient to support conviction for violation of sex offender registration requirement holding evidence legally sufficient under sections d and e recognizing that evidence may be legally insufficient where there is variance between indictment allegations and proof holding evidence legally sufficient holding evidence legally insufficient