We have a case that is on appeal involving gong-related organized criminal activity with the underlying offense of deadly conduct. In the jury charge, the court correctly charged the jury as to the definition of "knowingly" as a mental state, since that is the mental state for the deadly conduct. However, the trial court did not give an instruction on "with intent" or "intentionally," which is the correct mental state for the gang enhancement of EOCA.

Obviously, the defendant is claiming that the jury charge error was egregious. Is anyone aware of a case that says that failure to instruct as to the definition of a mental state is not egregious harm? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Engaging in gong-related organized criminal activity.

GANG-related activity. Thanks Gretchen.

No problem. I know I didn't answer your question, but I hope I at least made you laugh.

It seems that Ovelda v. State, 650 S.W.2d 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) stands for the proposition that "when the statutory definition is not included in the charge, it is assumed the jury would consider the commonly understood meaning in its deliberations." I think that will do.