In Posey v. State, 966 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), the Court addressed the potential for jury charge "error" arising from an omission in the charge that was not objected to at trial. Code of Criminal Procedure articles 36.14, Charge of Court, and 36.19, Review of Charge on Appeal, govern submission of jury instructions and determination of "error" in the charge. Posey, supra. "Error" due to erroneous omissions in the jury charge can result from either "omissions of issues upon which a trial court has a duty to instruct without a request from either party or issues that have been timely brought to the trial court's attention." Id. at 61 fn.9; see also Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 63-64. Disregarding a statutory provision referenced in article 36.19 is the type of omission that does not require a timely request or objection by a party. 6 See generally Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)(op. on reh'g)(different standards of assessing charge error apply depending upon whether or not error was subject to timely objection); see also Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 60 ("neither 'harm' standard to jury charge 'error' set out in Article 36.19 as construed by Almanza applies unless the record first shows that any requirement of various statutory provisions referenced in Article 36.19 'has been disregarded'"). Such omissions can be raised for the first time on appeal. See Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61 fn.6. In Posey, the defendant did not request a mistake-of-fact instruction or object to its omission in the jury charge, but claimed on appeal that the trial court should have sua sponte included such instruction. Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 59. Whether the trial court had a duty to sua sponte give the instruction depended upon whether "'any requirement' of Article 36.14 'had been disregarded." Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61. The Court noted that "if Article 36.14 imposes such a duty, then a trial court 'errs' in failing to sua sponte instruct the jury on a defensive issue that is raised by the evidence". Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 61, fn.6. In Posey, supra, the Court held that "a defensive issue is not law'applicable to the case' for purposes of article 36.14 unless the defendant timely requests the issue or objects to the omission of the issue in the jury charge." Posey, 966 S.W.2d at 62.