In Cosio v. State, 353 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), the complainant testified about four specific instances of sexual misconduct which the court labeled as the shower incident, the bedroom incident, the Burger King incident, and the pornography incident. 353 S.W.3d at 769. Given this specific testimony, the court held that the jury charge "allowed for the possibility that the jury rendered non-unanimous verdicts," asserting: "The jury could have relied on separate incidents of criminal conduct, which constituted different offenses or separate units of prosecution, committed by Cosio to find him guilty in the three remaining counts." Id. at 774. "Texas law requires that a jury reach a unanimous verdict about the specific crime that the defendant committed. This means that the jury must 'agree upon a single and discrete incident that would constitute the commission of the offense alleged.'" Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 771 (quoting Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)). Non-unanimity may result "when the State charges one offense and presents evidence that the defendant committed the charged offense on multiple but separate occasions." Id. at 772. "Each of the multiple incidents individually establishes a different offense or unit of prosecution." Id. "The judge's charge, to ensure unanimity, would need to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous as to a single offense or unit of prosecution among those presented." Id. The Court held a trial court's failure to expressly instruct the jury that it must be unanimous as to what criminal conduct constituted the offense is charge error. Consequently, an appellant can complain about such error on appeal even if he did not object to the charge at trial. Id. at 775-776. However, to obtain a reversal, the record must show the error was "egregious and created such harm that his trial was not fair and impartial." Id. An egregious harm determination must be based on a finding of actual rather than theoretical harm. Id. at 777. For actual harm to be established, the record must show the charge error affected the very basis of the case, deprived the defendant of a valuable right, or vitally affected a defensive theory. Id. When assessing harm based on the particular facts of the case, we consider: (1) the charge, (2) the state of the evidence, including contested issues and the weight of the probative evidence, (3) the parties' arguments, and (4) all other relevant information in the record. Cosio, 353 S.W.3d at 777. The Court found charge error where the trial court's charge allowed for a non-unanimous verdict. Cosio was indicted for four different offenses and was charged by four counts in a single indictment. The jury found Cosio guilty on all four counts. The court described three manners in which non-unanimity could arise and found error in Cosio's case where "non-unanimity may occur when the State charges one offense and presents evidence that the defendant committed the charged offense on multiple but separate occasions. Each of the multiple incidents individually establishes a different offense or unit of prosecution. The judge's charge, to ensure unanimity, would need to instruct the jury that its verdict must be unanimous as to a single offense or unit of prosecution among those presented." Id. at 772. There was evidence presented of the commission of each of the four counts and on some of the counts, there was evidence of more than one commission. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the charge allowed for a non-unanimous verdict and, consequently, that there was charge error.