context: Accordingly, on this record, we cannot conclude that the alleged charge error affected the very basis of the case, deprived appellant of a valuable right, vitally affected appellant's defensive theory, or made a case for conviction clearly and significantly more persuasive.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 783 S.W.2d 268, 268
citation_a.parenthetical: "Where no defense is presented which would directly affect an assessment of mental culpability, there is no harm in submitting erroneous definitions of 'intentionally' and 'knowingly.' "
citation_a.sentence: See Saldivar, 783 S.W.2d at 268 (“Where no defense is presented which would directly affect an assessment of mental culpability, there is no harm in submitting erroneous definitions of ‘intentionally’ and ‘knowingly.’ ”); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”). We overrule appellant’s first issue.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 229 S.W.3d 489, 494
citation_b.parenthetical: "[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was part of the State's required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind."
citation_b.sentence: See Saldivar, 783 S.W.2d at 268 (“Where no defense is presented which would directly affect an assessment of mental culpability, there is no harm in submitting erroneous definitions of ‘intentionally’ and ‘knowingly.’ ”); see also Jones v. State, 229 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (“[T]he intent of Jones in touching B.S.S., while it was part of the State’s required proof, was not a contested issue and consequently Jones could not be egregiously harmed by the definition of the intentional and knowing state of mind.”). We overrule appellant’s first issue.