In Heberling v. State, 834 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), the Court discussed the principles underpinning our conclusions in earlier delivery of controlled substances cases to clarify the definition of "actual transfer": . . .We now hold that an actual transfer or delivery, as commonly understood, contemplates the manual transfer of property from the transferor to the transferee or to the transferee's agents or to someone identified in law with the transferee. Heberling, 834 S.W.2d at 354. In Heberling, the Court clarified the definition of actual transfer to address the role of a transferee's agent. Id. Until the decision in Heberling, some confusion existed regarding the role of a buyer-transferee's agent in cases alleging actual transfer from a defendant to an undercover police officer. The problem arose when the facts demonstrated that contraband actually passed from a defendant to an intermediary and then from that intermediary to an undercover police officer, but the jury charge did not include an instruction on the law of parties or the law of agency. Heberling, 834 S.W.2d at 353-54. The Court's decision in Heberling made it clear that, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could conclude that an intermediary was an undercover officer's agent or representative, then proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an actual transfer from a defendant to that agent is legally sufficient to convict that defendant of an actual transfer to the undercover officer, whether or not the trial court instructed the jury on agency. Id. at 354.