instruction, given without objection, was not reversible error. The harm to L.D.C, given the jury’s other findings and the evidence, was only theoretical, not actual. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment for the State. 1 . 357 S.W.3d 124 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2011). 2 . L.D.C. tells us in his brief that he has since been transferred to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Brief for Respondent ii. 3 . 357 S.W.3d at 133. 4 . Tex Penal Code § 22.05(b). 5 . Tex Fam.Code § 54.03(c). 6 . Francis v. State, 36 S.W.3d 121, 124 (Tex. Crim.App.2000) (quoting Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 649, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring)). 7 . Francis, 36 S.W.3d at 125. See also Ngo v. State, 175 S.W.3d 738 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). 8 . 357 S.W.3d 124, 131 (Tex.App.-San Antonio
holding that although it is proper to instruct the jury that it may consider whether the factual predicates necessary to establish the prima facie case have been shown it is error to instruct the jury on the mcdonnell douglas burden shifting scheme recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole holding that for disjunctive jury charges it is error if the judge fails to instruct a jury that it must be unanimous in deciding which one or more of the disjunctively submitted offenses it found the defendant to have committed holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case