In Brooks v. State, 967 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.)., the jury was deadlocked on whether the defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the offense of assault on a public servant, 5 i.e., specifically, a police officer. Id. at 947, 949-50. The trial court orally instructed the jury that if a person "intentionally resists arrest" and causes bodily injury to a police officer, the person is guilty of the offense of assault on a public servant regardless if the defendant had the necessary intent to actually injure the police officer. Id. at 950. The appellate court concluded that the defendant suffered egregious harm because "to be guilty of assault on a public servant, one must intend the result of the conduct, not just the conduct itself." Id. The trial court's incorrect additional oral instructions actually caused the jury to "quickly" break its deadlock. Id. at 949-50. In sum, the jury was deadlocked on whether the defendant had the requisite mental state to commit the offense of assault on a public servant, and the trial court orally instructed the jury that if a person "intentionally resists arrest" and causes bodily injury to a police officer, the person is guilty of the offense of assault on a public servant regardless of whether the defendant had the necessary intent to actually injure the police officer. Id. at 949-50. The court concluded that the defendant suffered egregious harm because "to be guilty of assault on a public servant, one must intend the result of the conduct, not just the conduct itself." Id. at 950.