Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) specifically employs the hypothetically-correct jury charge at the guilt-innocence phase, but is silent as to application in the punishment phase. The rationale of Malik is based on the state's burden of proof as to the crime, and is ill-suited to the punishment phase, where there is no similar burden on the state as to the appropriate sentence. In Malik, the Court held: Sufficiency of the evidence should be measured by the elements of the offense as defined by the hypothetically correct jury charge for the case. Such a charge would be one that accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried. This standard can uniformly be applied to all trials, whether to the bench or to the jury, whether or not the indictment is facially complete, and regardless of the specific wording of the jury charge actually given. Moreover, the standard we formulate today ensures that a judgment of acquittal is reserved for those situations in which there is an actual failure in the State's proof of the crime rather than a mere error in the jury charge submitted. Malik, 953 S.W.2d at 240. The Court held that sufficiency of the evidence is to be measured by the hypothetically correct jury charge. A hypothetically correct jury charge is one which "accurately sets out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does not unnecessarily increase the State's burden of proof or unnecessarily restrict the State's theories of liability, and adequately describes the particular offense for which the defendant was tried."