In Farr v. State, 140 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.--Houston 14th Dist. 2004), aff'd 193 S.W.3d 904 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), Farr was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault. K.R. testified in detail about four specific acts of oral sex that occurred in the summer of 2001 and continued for several months. Id. She identified what happened during each incident, where in the apartment each took place, and "a general time line of when the events occurred, sometimes indicating her age and grade in school, the time of year the incident took place, or the approximate amount of time that had passed since the previous incident." Id. at 900. K.R. also testified that Farr "digitally penetrated her vagina 'every chance he got.'" Id. at 897. The trial court denied Farr's request for an election. See id. at 899. As to the oral sex offense, the Fourteenth Court held that "it is unclear from the testimony which incident the jury may have relied upon to convict" because K.R. had testified in detail about four specific incidents. Id. at 900. This created the potential that the jury might "convict because some of the jurors relied upon one incident and others relied upon another." Id. As to the digital penetration offense, K.R. testified "only generally," stating that Farr "would penetrate her with his finger 'every chance he got'", which "occurred when her mother and her sister were in other rooms of the apartment." Id. at 901. "She could not recall how many times these incidents occurred, but stated that they did not occur in connection with the incidents of oral sex." Id. D ue to the generality of these statements, the Court could not be certain that the error did not contribute to Farr's conviction. Id. It reversed Farr's convictions. See id.