The due process guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment presupposes that no person shall be made to suffer "the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof." It is from this proposition that the sufficiency of evidence analysis has emerged. All errors occurring during criminal prosecutions which are not "sufficiency error" may be categorized as "trial error." In an aberration to traditional sufficiency analysis, the Court of Criminal Appeals has acquitted defendants by confusing trial error with sufficiency error. An alternative to this problem is that when the actual charge is correct for the theory of the case presented, it should be the measure for the sufficiency analysis. When, however, the actual charge is incorrect, it must be reconstructed to give the court an accurate benchmark for its analysis. Texas cases relating to this issue are discussed, including Benson v. State, 661 S.W. 2d 708 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982), Boozer v. State, 717 S.W. 2d 608 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984), and Fain v. State 725 S.W. 2d 200 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). 106 footnotes.