Today's case almost serves to indicate the weakness inherent in the specificity of 28.08 (a). We recently indicted a case where the only evidence that aeresol paint was used was the defendant's confession that he had "spray-painted" the symbols/message on the school building. I suppose there are other ways (like spray droplets at the edges?) to prove this, but our police investigators did not even seem to recognize the problem. I am still wondering whether the accused's statement would have been legally and factually sufficient to prove the case (he has pled guilty). Is there a reason for us to care whether a brush or a pressurized can was used to apply the graffiti?