of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and of the strength of the evidence. Fuentes v. State, 991 S.W.2d 267, 271 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1026, 120 S.Ct. 541, 145 L.Ed.2d 420 (1999). Because it is the province of the jury to determine the facts, any inconsistencies in the testimony should be resolved in favor of the jury’s verdict. Id.; Johnson v. State, 815 S.W.2d 707, 712 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (quoting Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex.Crim.App.1988)). Applicable Law The State was required to prove that Jennings intentionally and knowingly possessed a prohibited weapon and exercised actual care, custody and control over the contraband. Tex. Pen.Code Ann. § 1.07(a)(39) (Vernon 2003); see Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234, 240 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (<HOLDING>). If the defendant does not have exclusive
holding that sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction is not measured by the jury charge actually given but rather measured by the elements of the offense as defined by a hypothetically correct charge holding that sufficiency of the evidence is measured against a hypothetically correct jury charge holding a jury charge which is substantially correct and covers the law does not require reversal holding when no objection is made to jury issue sufficiency of the evidence is measured against charge given by court rather than some other unidentified law holding that the sufficiency of evidence to prove malice as an element of negligent credentialing as contrasted from exemplary damages would be measured by the clear and convincing evidence standard provided in the charge submitted even though the law only required it to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence