In State v. Kinsey, 861 S.W.2d 383, 384 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), the trial court quashed an information because the prosecutor substituted more specific terms for the statutory wording which read: "A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on property or in a building of another without effective consent and he received notice to depart but failed to do so." See id. at 384. The State substituted "Norman Whitlock, the owner thereof" for the statutory word "another." The court stated that in comparing the term "of another" with the phrase "Norman Whitlock, the owner thereof," common sense dictated that the latter was merely descriptive of the former. See id. The court also noted that the substitution increased, not decreased, the State's burden of proof. See Kinsey, 861 S.W.2d at 384-85.