Under the doctrine of transferred intent, a person is criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that a different person was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. 6.04(b)(2) (West 1994). In this cause, a hypothetically correct jury charge would have included instructions on transferred intent. See: Manrique v. State, 994 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (omitted transferred intent application paragraph read into jury charge under Malik); Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (omission of transferred intent application paragraph is "closely analogous" to omission of law-of-parties application paragraph); Howard v. State, 966 S.W.2d 821, 824-25 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, pet. ref'd) (hypothetically correct charge would have included law-of-parties application paragraph). A person commits aggravated robbery if he commits robbery and causes serious bodily injury to another or uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. See id. 29.03(a). An act is intentional if the actor's conscious objective or desire is to engage in the act or cause the result of the act. See id. 6.03(a). A person acts knowingly if he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist, or when he is aware that his act is reasonably certain to cause the result. See id. 6.03(b).