Full opinion text
OPINION MILLER, Judge. Appellant was convicted of capital murder. V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2). After the jury returned affirmative findings to the three special issues submitted pursuant to Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P., the trial court sentenced appellant to death. On direct appeal to this Court, appellant raises nineteen points of error. We affirm appellant’s conviction. Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, but a detailed recitation of the facts is necessary to the disposition of several points of error. Appellant was charged with intentionally causing the death of Mark Mays by shooting him with a firearm while in the course of committing or attempting to commit the offense of kidnapping of Roxanne Lockard. Lockard testified she was dating the deceased, who was separated from his wife, at the time of the offense. Lockard lived in Austin but was visiting the deceased in Beaumont. She arrived in Beaumont on Friday night, August 30,1985. The following day, after the deceased got home from work, Lockard and the deceased sat at the pool, drank champagne, and celebrated Lockard’s purchase of a new car. That evening the two went to dinner, and Lockard testified the deceased had one or two drinks of Crown Royal bourbon at dinner. They arrived back at the deceased’s apartment sometime after midnight and went to bed. Lockard testified she was awakened at about 2:30 a.m. on September 1, 1985, by a light shining in her eyes. She realized the light was from a flashlight and batted it away. The person holding the light, who was later identified by Lockard as appellant, told her he had a gun. At this point, appellant told the deceased to get out of bed and lock himself in the hallway bathroom, which he did. Appellant then directed Lockard to get out of bed and put on some clothes. He instructed her to enter his truck which was parked behind Lock-ard’s car outside the back of the deceased’s apartment. Lockard testified appellant looked directly into her face when they got in the truck. Lockard next noticed the deceased had come out of the apartment and was standing in front of appellant’s truck. She saw the deceased standing near the rear of her car with a gun in his hands. Lockard heard gunfire but could not determine who fired the first shot. She got out of the truck and did not see appellant, but she did notice the deceased behind her car, partially bent over like “he was throwing up.” Realizing Mays, the deceased, had been shot, Lockard ran inside the apartment complex to find someone to call the police and an ambulance. The Beaumont Police Department found the deceased lying in a pool of blood behind his apartment with his gun underneath him. An autopsy revealed the deceased died from multiple gunshot wounds, two of which were fatal. A trace metal test came back positive for both of the deceased’s hands, and there was evidence the deceased shot his gun at least four times. The police also discovered five spent nine millimeter cartridges on both sides of Lockard’s car near the rear of the vehicle and a bullet hole in the fence surrounding the deceased’s apartment. The back door of the apartment had been pried open with a screwdriver which was found in the street behind Lockard’s car. Appellant testified at guilt/innocence that the screwdriver belonged to him but he did not pry open the door with it because the door was unlocked. Appellant went to the deceased’s apartment to burglarize it, and he took a .38 caliber revolver with him because he thought “it would avoid anybody from getting hurt.” Contrary to Lockard’s testimony, appellant testified that the light from the hall awakened her and the deceased and that Lockard never “swatted” at the flashlight. Inside the apartment, the deceased acted “jumpy” as appellant told him to lock himself in the bathroom, and, in fact, the deceased came out of the bathroom two or three times wanting to talk with appellant, but appellant flatly refused. Fearing the deceased might attack him, appellant “used” Lock-ard to safely get out of the apartment. Appellant testified that he did not recall if Lockard ever got into his truck, because as he opened the door on the driver’s side he heard a loud noise and felt something hit him in the neck. He then realized the deceased had shot him and therefore ducked behind the door of his truck. According to appellant, the deceased then shot him again, hitting him in the shoulder. At this point, appellant fired back one time, ducked behind the door again, rose up and fired two more shots. Appellant stated he then repeated this sequence. Appellant testified he thought the deceased was trying to kill him and was going to shoot him through the open doors of the truck. Appellant ran to the front of the truck where he saw the deceased on his hands and knees and shot him one last time, this time from about ten feet away. Appellant thereafter got in his truck and drove away. The pathologist who performed the autopsy on the deceased testified Mays had gunshot wounds on both arms, his right shoulder, which wound was disabling, and his face. The deceased also had two wounds to his chest area which were fatal. A forensic pathologist testified that the stippling on the deceased’s body was consistent with the muzzle of the gun being within twenty-four inches of the deceased’s body, and it could have been as close as twelve inches, when one of the fatal shots was fired. After commission of the alleged offense, appellant requested an interview with Sam Kittrell, Assistant Chief of Police in Vidor. They talked at the Vidor police station on September 5, 1985, at 4:00 a.m. According to Kittrell, appellant had wounds on his right arm and side of his neck. Appellant told Kittrell what happened in Beaumont and directed authorities to the site where he disposed of the weapon, which had been stolen from a Beaumont resident earlier the night of the alleged offense. Appellant also spoke to officers with the Beaumont Police Department while in Vidor. Officer Patrick O’Quinn testified appellant told him he was “looking for a piece” when he entered the deceased’s apartment and the deceased “acted crazy” but never threatened him. According to O’Quinn, appellant’s first shot at the deceased missed, so he fired two more times, but the deceased was still moving so appellant fired once more to “finish him off.” In his nineteenth point of error, appellant claims the trial judge erred in failing to properly charge the jury on the murder/voluntary manslaughter issue in violation of Cobarrubio v. State, 675 S.W.2d 749 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Appellant objected to the jury charge at trial. Appellant argues that the application paragraph on capital murder submitted at guilt/innocence failed to require the State to disprove that he acted as a result of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause and thereby shifted the burden of proof on this issue to him since the sudden passion “element” was submitted only in the application paragraph on voluntary manslaughter. The State argues that the deceased was acting in Lockard’s defense and/or to prevent her kidnapping, and therefore, under the rationale of Lincecum v. State, 736 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied 486 U.S. 1061, 108 S.Ct. 2835, 100 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988), the issue of voluntary manslaughter was not raised. We agree with the State and therefore do not decide whether the trial court’s charge on this issue violated Cobarrubio because appellant was not entitled to a jury charge on voluntary manslaughter. In Lincecum, the defendant was charged with intentionally causing the death of the victim in the course of committing and attempting to commit the offense of kidnapping, robbery, or aggravated sexual assault. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court erred in failing to submit a charge to the jury on voluntary manslaughter. The defendant’s confession showed that the victim stabbed him with his knife. The defendant argued this evidence sufficiently established sudden passion arising from an adequate cause under V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 19.04. Assuming arguendo the defendant experienced sudden passion after he was stabbed by the victim, we held the defendant failed to show adequate cause. Thus, we stated: Clearly, [the victim's] acts in stabbing appellant were justified in self-defense and in defense of her son. [citations omitted] Under the facts of this case, appellant may not claim that [the victim’s] acts in self-defense gave rise to adequate cause so that he was justified in killing her, even if he was acting under sudden passion after the stabbing. Thus, the issue of voluntary manslaughter was not raised by the evidence. Lincecum, 736 S.W.2d at 679. The State argues, and we agree, this same rationale should apply in the present cause where the person who allegedly provoked appellant was acting to prevent commission of a felony under V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 9.32(3)(B) and in defense of a third person under V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 9.33. The evidence clearly indicates that appellant initiated the entire criminal episode which led to the deceased’s death and that the deceased shot appellant in an attempt to prevent the aggravated kidnapping of Lockard. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code § 20.04(a)(2). Under §§ 9.32 and 9.33, supra, the deceased was justified in using deadly force in defense of himself and a third person, specifically Lockard. We will not consider the deceased’s justified actions as an adequate cause for appellant’s illegal acts. To so hold would allow criminals a justifiable reason for killing their victims who rightly seek to protect themselves or others from criminal activity. See Westley v. State, 754 S.W.2d 224, 230 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Penry v. State, 691 S.W.2d 636, n. 2 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied 474 U.S. 1073 (1986). Thus, we hold that the deceased’s actions in shooting appellant did not constitute adequate cause from which sudden passion may arise. See Penal Code § 19.04(a). Holding that adequate cause is not raised by the evidence in this case, appellant was not entitled to a charge on voluntary manslaughter. We therefore do not determine whether there is Cobarrubio error in the jury charge. Appellant’s nineteenth point of error is overruled. In his eighteenth point of error, appellant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s affirmative finding on the third issue submitted at punishment. At the punishment phase of trial, the trial judge submitted to the jury, pursuant to the dictates of Art. 37.071, the following question: 3. Was the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any by the deceased? The jury answered “yes” to this special issue. When addressing this challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant’s conduct was unreasonable in response to provocation by the deceased. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); Westley, supra. Appellant urges that the evidence from the only two eyewitnesses to this offense, himself and Lockard, is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury’s answer. He argues that Lockard’s testimony indicates the deceased had a gun, but Lockard did not know who fired the first shot and was unable to testify to what actually occurred. Appellant’s testimony established that he was shot twice and wounded, that he was scared during the exchange of gunfire with the deceased, and that he thought the deceased was trying to kill him. Appellant further asserts that the investigating officers testified that he was wounded in the “altercation.” Appellant’s argument ignores the well-established principle that the jury, in answering the special issues under Art. 37.071, supra, at the punishment stage of a capital murder trial, may consider all evidence adduced at the guilt/innocence phase of trial, as well as the evidence introduced during the penalty phase. Smith v. State, 676 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied 471 U.S. 1061, 105 S.Ct. 2173, 85 L.Ed.2d 490 (1985), citing Bravo v. State, 627 S.W.2d 152 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). Appellant’s argument also portrays him as the victim of this offense. Appellant conveniently forgets that he broke into the deceased’s apartment armed with a deadly weapon and abducted Lock-ard at gunpoint. It is clear from the testimony at trial that both the deceased and Lockard feared for their lives when confronted by appellant and rightfully so as neither the deceased nor Lockard was armed at that point. The evidence also showed that after the exchange of gunfire began in the parking lot appellant continued to fire at the deceased, once at close range, even though the deceased was injured and on the ground on his hands and knees unable to further fire at appellant. This close range shot was the final one by appellant; testimony of the medical examiner established that this shot was one of the two fatal shots suffered by the deceased. Appellant used all the rounds in his pistol in committing this offense. Appellant submits that the only cases in which this Court has held the evidence sufficient on the third special issue is where the defendant did not act out of fear for his life and where the killing of the deceased was not shown to be reasonable at all. Appellant cites Penry, 691 S.W.2d 636; Green v. State, 682 S.W.2d 271 (Tex.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied 470 U.S. 1034, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 794 (1985), and Smith, 676 S.W.2d 379, to support his contention, but he misreads our decisions in these cases. We found the evidence sufficient in these cases either because the struggle between the victim and the defendant was not reasonable provocation or because the defendant’s response to the victim’s resistance was unreasonable. The defendant fearing for his life was not the determining factor in judging the sufficiency of the evidence. Smith, Green, and Penry. The import of our analysis was that a defendant is not entitled to a “no” answer on the third punishment issue simply because there is evidence in the record that the victim used deadly force in resisting the defendant. While such evidence may be “mitigating” and entitle a defendant to submission of the third issue at punishment, see Evans v. State, 601 S.W.2d 943, 947 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), it does not render the evidence insufficient to support an affirmative finding on the third punishment issue. Moreover, the deceased had a right to defend himself as well as Lockard. Such action does not automatically rise to the level of provocation as a matter of law in special issue number three. See Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185, 204 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 819, 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989) (robbery victim’s right to defend himself was not “provocation”). Having reviewed all the evidence presented during trial in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, we find it sufficient to support the jury’s affirmative answer to special issue number three. Appellant’s point of error is overruled. In points of error twelve, sixteen and seventeen, appellant asserts the prosecutor committed reversible error in his jury arguments at both stages of trial. In the twelfth point of error, appellant complains of the following argument by the prosecutor at guilt/innocence: (Prosecutor): Ladies and gentlemen, there’s one verdict that’s proper in this case. You’ve known it since yesterday, the verdict that family and those police officers and the people of Jefferson County know is proper in this case— Mr. Powell (defense counsel): Your Hon- or, we would object to counsel arguing that the jury should base their decision on the expectation of anybody, except on the evidence. The Court: Sustained. Mr. Powell: We would further request, Your Honor, that the Court instruct the jury to disregard [the prosecutor’s] statement. The Court: So instructed. The prosecutor then concluded his jury argument without any further objection or a motion for mistrial from defense counsel. The general rule is that to preserve error committed during jury argument the defendant must object until receiving an adverse ruling. Purtell v. State, 761 S.W.2d 360 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Briddle v. State, 742 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 543, 102 L.Ed.2d 573 (1988). An exception to this rule exists when the jury argument is so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard the argument could not cure the harm. In that instance, neither a timely objection nor an adverse ruling is required to preserve the error for review. Motley v. State, 773 S.W.2d 283 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), and cases cited therein at p. 293. Appellant contends the prosecutor’s argument was that type argument that is so prejudicial the instruction to the jury given by the trial judge could not have cured the harm. Appellant claims the prosecutor’s argument amounts to reversible error because he implied that the deceased’s family, the police, and the Jefferson County community expect a particular verdict (obviously that of guilty) in this case. The State counters that the prosecutor’s argument was a reasonable deduction from the evidence presented at trial through the testimony of appellant and a forensic pathologist. Proper jury argument falls into four specific categories, viz: (1) summation of the evidence, (2) reasonable deduction from the evidence, (3) answer to argument by opposing counsel, and (4) plea for law enforcement. See Alejandro v. State, 493 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). This Court has held that a jury argument which refers to the expectations or demands of the community for a particular result constitutes error, and the harm cannot be cured by an instruction to the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s statements. Cortez v. State, 683 S.W.2d 419 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Wilson v. State, 581 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1979) (Opinion on State’s Motion for Rehearing); Bothwell v. State, 500 S.W.2d 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). In Cortez, 683 S.W.2d at 420-421, a case in which the trial judge overruled an objection to the prosecutor’s plea for the jury to heed the demands of the community for a life sentence for the defendant, Judge Teague, writing for the majority, stated: [J]ury argument by a prosecuting attorney that is designed to induce the jury to convict the defendant or assess him a particular punishment because ‘the people’ desire such is improper jury argument. This type argument is manifestly improper, harmful and prejudicial to the defendant and will not be countenanced by this Court. Whenever a prosecuting attorney tells a. jury that the people of the community where the crime was committed wants (sic) an accused person convicted ..he is not only injecting a new and harmful fact into evidence, which had no place there originally, but he is conducting his case along lines never contemplated by the framers of our constitution. See also Cox v. State, 157 Tex.Cr.R. 134, 247 S.W.2d 262, 263 (1952). The infirm jury argument in Cortez, which occurred at the punishment phase of that trial, was: You have a chance right now to cut this cancer cell out of this society, and hopefully save it. It is up to you twelve people. Now, the only punishment that you can assess that would be any satisfaction at all to the people of this county would be life [imprisonment], (Emphasis in original). We held the trial judge erred in overruling the defendant’s objection to this argument, and this argument constituted reversible error. The import of the prosecutor’s argument was that the community would not be satisfied with a verdict less than the maximum punishment. This argument was clearly an attempt by the prosecutor to induce the jury to assess the defendant the maximum penalty because the community “ ‘want[ed],’ ‘desire[d],’ ‘require[d],’ or ‘expected]’ the jury to return that penalty” and, as such, was manifestly improper. Cortez, 683 S.W.2d at 421. Noting that the trial judge overruled the objection to the complained of argument, we reversed the appellant’s conviction in that cause. Comparing the arguments noted to be improper in Cortez to the argument in this case, we hold that the prosecutor’s argument was not an overt plea for a conviction based on community sentiment rather than the evidence at trial and, therefore, was not improper jury argument. First we find compelling the fact that the prosecutor was unable to complete his statement by virtue of appellant’s objection, and we are not inclined here to speculate whether the prosecutor’s argument would have encroached upon an improper area for jury argument. Second, we believe the prosecutor’s argument is analogous to saying “after hearing all the evidence, I know, you know, and everyone in this courtroom knows the defendant is guilty.” This appears to be the gist of the State’s argument. The prosecutor did not, in our view, tell the jury to convict appellant because that verdict was expected of them. Having concluded the prosecutor’s comments were within the proper bounds of jury argument, it logically follows that this argument was not that type that is so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard would not cure the harm. Appellant’s twelfth point of error is overruled. In his sixteenth point of error, appellant argues the prosecutor committed reversible error in his punishment argument when he argued matters outside the record. During the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument he discussed the jurors’ duty to serve on a jury and then began to discuss his duty: Prosecutor: I’m here, because it’s my duty and it’s my job to be here, and it’s not my job to come down here and put on fabricated evidence. It’s not my job to hide the truth. In fact, there is, once again, a Statute in law that say (sic) if I have anything, if I have any evidence that is— Defense Counsel: Your Honor— Prosecutor: —that is exculpatory— Defense Counsel: I would object to [the prosecutor’s] argument. The law that’s necessary for the jury is included in the Charge, and for [the prosecutor] to argue the law outside the Charge is improper argument. The trial judge overruled defense counsel’s objection stating the prosecutor had “the right to answer." Appellant contends in his brief that the prosecutor’s argument was improper as outside the record. After reviewing the arguments at punishment of both the prosecution and defense, we find the prosecutor’s argument was in response to defense counsel’s argument and therefore was proper. Defense counsel questioned the credibility of the State’s witnesses and whether the State wanted justice in this case, and also argued that the prosecutor had selectively picked testimony that was favorable to his case, ignored evidence which supported “no” answers to the special issues, and failed to call an officer regarding appellant’s showing of remorse. Appellant also contends the prosecutor’s argument implied to the jury that the defense presented fabricated evidence and attempted to impugn the integrity of the defense by referring to matters outside the record. This complaint on appeal differs from the objection raised at trial, thus the error, if any, is waived. See McGee v. State, 774 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Appellant’s sixteenth point of error is overruled. Appellant argues in his seventeenth point of error that reversible error occurred when the prosecutor interjected his personal opinion in his jury argument during the punishment phase of trial. The prosecutor stated to the jury “[a]nd I think you know my opinion is, you bet, ‘Yes’ is a correct answer [to the special issues at punishment]”. Appellant failed to object to this argument. In light of the record as a whole, this argument was not so manifestly improper and prejudicial that an instruction to disregard could not have cured the harm. See discussion infra. Thus, any impropriety in the State’s argument was waived by appellant’s failure to object. The seventeenth point of error is overruled. In points of error thirteen through fifteen, appellant complains of the erroneous admission of evidence during the punishment phase of his trial. In his thirteenth point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, through the testimony of Officer Gus Rose, the punishment assessed in a prior capital murder case in which appellant was associated. The prior capital murder case arose out of the killing of a Dallas police officer in 1976. Appellant originally confessed to the killing because “it would help his reputation” but later recanted and implicated his cohort Randall Dale Adams. Appellant was not charged in connection with the offense, and he testified for the State in Adams’ trial for capital murder. Adams was convicted and sentenced to death. During the punishment phase of the instant case, the State elicited testimony from the police officer who handled the investigation of the 1976 offense. This police officer testified in the present cause, over appellant’s objection, that Adams was sentenced to death for the 1976 offense but was presently serving a life sentence in Huntsville. Appellant contends that this evidence was irrelevant and so inflammatory and prejudicial as to deny him a fair trial. The State contends appellant may not be heard to complain on appeal of the admission of this testimony because he later elicited the same testimony from the officer on cross-examination. The State cites Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59, 62 (Tex.Cr.App.1981), wherein we stated “[w]hen a defendant offers the same testimony as that objected to, or the same evidence is introduced from another source, without objection, the defendant is not in position to complain on appeal.” See also Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Reviewing the record from the punishment phase of the trial, we find that prior to the State calling Officer Rose and eliciting the complained of testimony, appellant’s counsel, on cross-examination of Chief Kittrell, established that Adams had been tried and convicted for the capital murder of the Dallas police officer and was now serving a life sentence for that conviction. The State then called Officer Rose to testify and established, over objection, that Adams was assessed the death penalty for his capital murder conviction. Appellant’s counsel cross-examined Rose regarding the witnesses in the Adams’ case and the credibility of appellant as a witness in that case. Appellant’s counsel elicited the following testimony: Q. (Defense counsel): And the State of Texas asked twelve people to believe [appellant] in assessing the death penalty against another man (Adams), didn’t they? A. (Rose): Yes, they did. Q. And this is after you had information that [appellant] had been involved in some offenses in Vidor, and after you had information that he wanted to be a tough guy and after you came to some conclusion that he was dangerous, the State of Texas still asked twelve people to accept his version and his word as truth in a matter serious enough to put a man to death, is that correct? A. Yes. In regards to that specific incident yes. This testimony informed the jury of essentially the same fact that appellant previously objected to and sought to prevent the jury from hearing; to wit, that the Adams’ jury assessed him the death penalty. Any error caused by the prosecutor in informing the jury of this fact was rendered harmless since appellant elicited substantially the same testimony from Rose and Kittrell. Accord Brown v. State, 757 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1988); Willis v. State, 785 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Appellant’s thirteenth point of error is overruled. Appellant groups together in his brief his fourteenth and fifteenth points of error. The State contends appellant has preserved nothing for review as to the fourteenth point because it fails to point out error by the trial judge, and as to the fifteenth point, the State claims it is merely an explanation of the fourteenth point. For reasons somewhat different than the State argues, we agree no error is preserved. During the punishment phase of trial, the State called Raymond Rucker, a deputy sheriff in California, to testify. Rucker arrested appellant in California in November of 1979 for carrying a concealed weapon and attempted burglary. In conjunction with those two offenses, appellant was later charged with attempted robbery of a convenience store clerk and kidnapping of James Filaan. While questioning Ruck-er as to the events surrounding appellant’s arrest for these offenses, the State ascertained that appellant and Filaan were talking at the time Rucker approached them, but he could not hear what they were saying. The prosecutor elicited the following testimony: Q. Did you subsequently learn what [appellant] told Filaan? A. Yes. [Defense counsel]: The Defense objects. Counsel is attempting to elicit hearsay. He’s already testified he didn’t hear the conversation, and the only basis of knowledge he would have, then, would be second-hand. The Court: What’s your reply? [Prosecutor]: I didn’t ask him what he learned they said, just whether he learned what was said, Your Honor. The Court: That’s not what you asked. The objection is sustained. Rephrase your question. Q. (by the prosecutor) Without going into the contents of what that conversation was, did you subsequently learn what [appellant] told Filaan? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. That’s been some six and a half years ago, right? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you feel lucky to be alive, today? [Defense counsel]: I object to that question. It’s purely prejudicial and inflammatory for the jury, and it’s for the jury to speculate on something not in evidence and it calls for his opinion—for this witness to speculate, and it’s offered, purely, for the purpose of trying to inflame this jury, and has no evidentiary value. The Court: Overruled. Q. (by the prosecutor) Do you feel lucky to be alive, today? A. (by Rucker) Very much so. Appellant claims the prosecutor introduced inadmissible hearsay into evidence through this testimony. We do not reach this contention because appellant’s hearsay objection at trial was sustained so he obtained all the relief he requested and nothing is preserved for review. DeRusse v. State, 579 S.W.2d 224 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellant’s subsequent objection was not based on hearsay and therefore cannot provide any basis for relief on this point of error. Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), reh’g denied. Appellant’s fourteenth point of error is overruled. In his fifteenth point of error, appellant contends reversible error occurred when the prosecutor elicited opinion evidence from Rucker in order to bring inadmissible hearsay before the jury. More specifically, appellant claims that Rucker’s testimony that he felt “lucky to be alive” implied that appellant communicated a threat to Rucker’s life to Filaan, who in turn related that threat to Rucker. Appellant contends this testimony is inadmissible because Filaan’s statement to Rucker is hearsay and “the prosecutor expressed to the jury indirectly that which he could not have expressed directly.” This ground alleged on appeal, the indirect admission of hearsay testimony, does not comport with appellant’s trial objection, and therefore nothing is preserved for our review. The fifteenth point of error is overruled. In appellant’s eleventh point of error, he asserts he was denied a fair trial when the State failed to provide discovery of a polygraph examination of the State’s chief witness, Lockard. During presentation of the State’s case-in-chief, defense counsel learned through a reference in Detective Sheffield’s offense report that Lock-ard had been given a polygraph examination by a Detective Tatum. Defense counsel then petitioned the trial court for further discovery under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), for a continuance, and for a mistrial. The State’s response was two-fold: that the results of the polygraph examination are not exculpatory and, in any event, the State would make Detective Tatum available to appellant. The trial proceeded without “any ultimate resolution” being reached by the trial judge on the motion for continuance; the trial judge denied the motion for mistrial. On cross-examination of Detective Sheffield, defense counsel established Lockard was turned over to Detective Tatum “to determine whether she was telling the truth”, and Detective Sheffield never received any indication that Lockard was being “less than a hundred percent truthful” with the detectives. The next day of trial, appellant again raised his discovery and continuance motions because appellant had not yet had contact with Detective Tatum and, therefore, appellant asserted the State failed to comply with the trial judge’s discovery order. The prosecutor indicated that he had been unable to contact Detective Tatum but assured the court and defense counsel that Detective Tatum would be available to be interviewed by 5:00 p.m. that day. The trial judge acknowledged defense counsel’s motion for continuance had merit if the prosecutor did not get the polygraph information from Detective Tatum and give it to defense counsel. The trial then proceeded without any further motion or objection by defense counsel. The matter was never brought up again during the trial by either defense counsel or the State. On the basis of these facts, we find appellant’s point of error is completely without merit. We have reviewed the record and there is no indication that the State subsequently failed to produce Detective Tatum for an interview with defense counsel or that the State did not produce the polygraph examination results. Appellant fails to point us to any place in the record which would affirmatively show that the State did not comply with the trial judge’s instructions on this matter. The motion for continuance was not raised again, nor was it ever granted. Appellant also did not raise, as a ground in his motion for new trial, this alleged failure of the State to produce the polygraph information. In other words, appellant has wholly failed to show he was denied the requested polygraph information and that he was denied a fair trial. The eleventh point of error is overruled. Appellant’s points of error numbers one through ten address alleged errors during voir dire. In point of error number one, appellant argues the trial court erred in sua sponte excusing venireman Curtis Dixon from the jury panel. Appellant contends Dixon was not absolutely disqualified from jury service under Art. 35.19, V.A.C.C.P., so it was improper for the trial judge to excuse Dixon on his own motion, and this excusal amounted to reversible error because the State exercised all its peremptory challenges and appellant was forced to accept an objectionable juror. Appellant cites Esquivel v. State, 595 S.W.2d 516 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 986, 101 S.Ct. 408, 66 L.Ed.2d 251, and Goodman v. State, 701 S.W.2d 850 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), in support of his contention. We find that neither Esquivel nor Goodman is dispositive, and, given the state of the record, appellant mischaracter-izes the action taken by the trial judge. The record reflects that a group of potential venirepersons was called pursuant to Art. 35.01, V.A.C.C.P., and brought into the courtroom on April 7, 1986. The trial judge introduced both parties to the prospective jury panel and then explained some basic tenets of criminal jurisprudence. The State and defense counsel were both given the opportunity to make general remarks to the panel concerning the issues they would be confronted with during voir dire. At this point in time, no individual voir dire was done but the panel had apparently been sworn pursuant to Art. 35.02, V.A.C.C.P. After the general remarks, the trial judge explained that the clerk would be contacting each venire-member regarding his time for individual “interviews” by counsel and recessed the panel except for those venirepersons who “cannot, for some reason that is very, very important to [them], return to be personally questioned by the lawyers[.]” Six veniremembers remained, one of whom was Dixon. During questioning pursuant to Art. 35.-03, § 1, V.A.C.C.P., Dixon explained to the trial judge .he was expecting permanent employment in Houston on either April 15th or April 21st. Neither the State nor defense counsel questioned Dixon at this time, and the trial judge asked him to wait outside. The State had no objection to excusing Dixon, but defense counsel objected stating “the Defense would object to excusing Mr. Dixon on that excuse.” After questioning several other venirepersons as to their excuses, the trial judge asked defense counsel why he objected to the excu-sal of Dixon. Defense counsel responded: I’m sympathetic about his job, but he looks, potentially, like a good Defense juror. That’s why, real frankly. The trial judge overruled this objection and excused Dixon. In a recent decision, we determined that the excusal of a prospective venireperson at this stage of trial was not a “sua sponte” excusal. See Johnson v. State, 773 S.W.2d 322 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Under Art. 35.03, V.A.C.C.P., the trial judge has the authority to hear and determine the sufficiency of excuses for not serving as a juror. We held the excusal of a prospective juror under Art. 35.03, § 1, supra, is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal if the record supports his ruling. Johnson, at p. 330. Cases such as Green v. State, 764 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Nichols v. State, 754 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 819, 102 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989); Rougeau v. State, 738 S.W.2d 651 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1029, 108 S.Ct. 1586, 99 L.Ed.2d 901 (1988); and Moore v. State, 542 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 949, 97 S.Ct. 2666, 53 L.Ed.2d 266 (1977), wherein we found error, albeit not always reversible, from sua sponte excusáis of jurors were not disposi-tive in Johnson. These cases were founded on the principle that a trial court should not on its own motion excuse a prospective juror for cause under Art. 35.16, V.A.C. C.P, unless he is absolutely disqualified from jury service under Art. 35.19, V.A.C. C.P. The same applies to Esquivel and Goodman which appellant cites in support of his contention. The opinions in Nichols, 754 S.W.2d at 193, and Rougeau, 738 S.W.2d at 661, relying on Goodman cite this rule of law as “a trial judge should never sua sponte excuse a prospective” juror unless the juror is absolutely disqualified or exempt under the law. Deleting the “for cause” language implies that a trial judge’s discretionary excusal of a venireperson pursuant to Art. 35.03 constitutes error. In Rougeau, the trial judge excused venireperson Smith because he had a prepaid trip to Hong Kong which would interfere with serving as a juror, and in Nichols, the trial judge excused venireperson Hurzeler because his wedding was scheduled near the time trial was to begin. In both cases this Court found the trial court erred in excusing the prospective jurors on its own motion. Neither opinion discussed Art. 35.03 as a basis for the trial judge’s actions. See also Green, 764 S.W.2d at 246, n. 1. Under Johnson and our holding today, neither the excusal of venireperson Smith nor the ex-cusal of venireperson Hurzeler would be “sua sponte” or error. To the extent Rougeau and Nichols conflict with the holding in this case and Johnson, they are overruled. Johnson therefore is the controlling caselaw in this area. Since the prospective venireperson in Johnson was excused pursuant to Art. 35.03, § 1, rather than for cause, the rationale in the opinions cited by appellant does not apply. The present case is analogous to Johnson. There was no individual voir dire examination of Dixon by either the State or appellant’s counsel to determine whether he was absolutely disqualified from jury service under Art. 35.19 or challengeable for cause pursuant to Art. 35.16. In fact, there was no individual voir dire of Dixon as contemplated by Art. 35.17(2), V.A.C. C.P., although he had been sworn pursuant to the dictates of Art. 35.02. The trial judge did not excuse Dixon for cause but for the reason that he had a new job in a different county. Under these circumstances, we hold the trial judge’s excusal of Dixon was not an abuse of discretion under Art. 35.03 and therefore no error is presented. Appellant’s first point of error is overruled. In his second point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in excluding Christine Lindenberg from the jury panel over his objection. The State challenged Lindenberg for cause under Art. 35.16(b)(1) and (b)(3), V.A.C.C.P., based upon her personal convictions regarding the death penalty. The trial judge granted the challenge relying on Bell v. State, 724 S.W.2d 780 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), reh’g. denied, and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). Lindenberg indicated on her juror information card that she did not believe in the death penalty. Upon questioning by the prosecutor, she stated, however, that on an “intelligent level” she could see that in some circumstances the death penalty was warranted, but on a “personal level” she did not believe she could make that decision. Lindenberg indicated she would have no trouble determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant but the penalty phase of trial presented her with problems. She felt she would be guided by her personal feelings during deliberations on the special issues at punishment and could not assess the death penalty, and she also stated it was “not probable” that she would change her mind. Defense counsel then questioned Linden-berg in an attempt to rehabilitate her. Lin-denberg read the juror’s oath and stated she could follow the oath and the law and render a true verdict on those bases at guilt/innocence. She also responded affirmatively to defense counsel’s inquiry as to whether she would follow the law and answer the special issues “yes” when “the evidence is there and you are instructed that the law says to answer [the questions] ‘yes’ ”. Defense counsel then objected to the State’s challenge, and the trial judge denied the challenge at this point. The State then continued voir dire examination of Lindenberg. She equivocated somewhat when answering whether she could answer the special issues and “live with [herjself” and finally indicated that she could not, at this point in the case, definitively state whether she would be able to answer the special issues. At one point, Lindenberg summarized her feelings as follows, which is representative of her remarks during voir dire: It’s this: I do not believe that I could sentence someone to death. I don’t believe that. But when people say, “Well, in this case, all this”, then, it mixes it up and you think maybe you could, but when it really gets down to it, it is if you can or not. And when I got out in the hall, no matter what you have persuaded me or said, “Well, maybe I could or I couldn’t”, but when I got out in that hall, I’m going to end up saying, “No, I can’t make that bottom line decision”. The prosecutor concluded his voir dire examination of Lindenberg with her agreeing that she would ultimately be guided by her personal feelings during punishment deliberations and that her personal views regarding the death penalty would prevent or substantially impair her from performing her duties as a juror in accordance with the oath and the jury charge. The State re: newed its challenge for cause upon the same bases. Defense counsel’s subsequent questions did not attempt to rehabilitate Lindenberg on the issues supporting the challenge for cause, but he again objected to the challenge. The trial judge granted the State’s challenge the following day. A juror who will ultimately be guided by her personal views rather than the law is not qualified to sit on a jury in this state. Landry v. State, 706 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied 479 U.S. 871, 107 S.Ct. 242, 93 L.Ed.2d 167 (1986). Wainwright v. Witt permits the exclusion of a prospective juror whose personal views will prevent or substantially impair the performance of her duties as a juror in accordance with the juror’s oath and the judge’s instructions. See e.g. Knox v. State, 744 S.W.2d 53 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1061, 108 S.Ct. 2834, 100 L.Ed.2d 934, reh’g denied, 487 U.S. 1246, 109 S.Ct. 4, 101 L.Ed.2d 956 (1988). As we stated in Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 794, the Wainwright v. Witt standard ... recognizes that such bias [against the death penalty] is not susceptible to unmistakably clear proof through the voir dire process, and that venire members may be reticent, inarticulate, or unsure of how they would react when faced with imposing the death sentence, [citation omitted] Finally, it makes clear that ‘whether or not a venireman might vote for death under certain personal standards, the State still may properly challenge that venireman if he refuses to follow the statutory scheme and truthfully answer the questions put by the trial judge.’ [citation omitted]. After reviewing Lindenberg’s voir dire as a whole, see Cordova v. State, 733 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240, 108 S.Ct. 2915, 101 L.Ed.2d 946 (1988), we hold the record supports the trial judge’s implicit finding that prospective juror Lindenberg would be substantially impaired in her ability to abide by her oath as a juror. Because of her personal convictions regarding the death penalty, Lindenberg evidences a bias against a phase of the law which the State is entitled to rely for punishment. Consequently, the trial judge did not err in granting the State’s challenge for cause, and appellant’s second point of error is overruled. In points of error numbers three through ten, appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to grant his challenges for cause to eight venirepersons. Appellant correctly asserts error is preserved as to each overruled challenge because he exhausted all his peremptory challenges, requested further peremptory challenges, which were denied, and was forced to accept an objectionable juror, whom he specified to the trial court. Bell, 724 S.W.2d at 795. We will address these points in the order presented by appellant. In point of error number three, appellant contends venireman Mark Kucera was challengeable for cause for two reasons. First, appellant challenged Kucera on the basis of Art. 35.16(c)(2), V.A.C.C.P., because he admitted upon questioning by defense counsel that he would tend to give more weight to police officers’ testimony than to testimony from “ordinary plain clothes” persons. When asked whether he thought the State’s case would be “more believable” because of this opinion regarding testimony from law enforcement officers, Kucera answered “I don’t know. I just don’t know.” When pressed by defense counsel for a definite answer, Kucera stated he would try to be fair but he believed the State’s case would be more credible than appellant’s if the State’s witnesses were predominantly law enforcement personnel. Upon questioning by the State, however, Kucera answered affirmatively inquiries as to whether he could take the oath to serve as a juror, follow the law, and judge the testimony of law enforcement officers and lay witnesses by the same standard. Kucera also agreed with the prosecutor that everybody, including law enforcement officers, lies occasionally and he would “not automatically go with a law enforcement officer over a lay witness just because they’re a law enforcement officer[.]” The trial judge denied appellant’s challenge for cause. Defense counsel did not question the venireman any further on this issue but concentrated his subsequent questioning on the second basis for the challenge for cause. Although we have set out only a portion of Kucera’s voir dire examination, we have reviewed the entire voir dire of this venireman. We find the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling appellant’s challenge for cause on the basis of Art. 35.-16(c)(2). Kucera clearly indicated he could follow the law and not prejudge any witness’s testimony. While Kucera did state he would favor the State’s case when defense counsel told him “I don’t know” answers during voir dire were “not quite enough in this type of case”, Kucera also expressed he did not believe that police officers always tell the truth. This Court has held that a prospective juror who maintains a belief that police officers always tell the truth is challengeable for cause, and the improper overruling of that challenge is reversible error. Hernandez v. State, 563 S.W.2d 947 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). This cause is factually distinguishable from Hernandez. In light of Kucera’s entire voir dire examination, a bias or prejudice against the law upon which appellant is entitled to rely has not been established. Montoya v. State (Tex.Cr.App. No. 69,644 delivered May 24, 1989); Little v. State, 758 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), reh’g denied, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 109 S.Ct. 328, 102 L.Ed.2d 346. In his brief, appellant predicates his second challenge to Kucera on Art. 35.16(a)(9) and (10). During voir dire appellant couched the challenge in terms of Kuc-era’s inability to follow the law as to the burden of proof. In his brief appellant argues Kucera was challengeable for cause because he had already reached a conclusion as to appellant’s guilt or innocence. The State contends that appellant has waived any error because this point of error does not comport with the challenge asserted during voir dire. From reading the voir dire, we discern appellant has intermingled the issues but he has not raised a new basis to support the challenge to Kucera even though appellant uses different terms. Thus, we find no waiver and address appellant’s second challenge. Appellant bases this challenge on the following colloquy: Q. (by defense counsel) Okay. Now, what if you thought he was possibly guilty of capital murder. Okay? And by that, what I’m trying to tell you is you have some doubts and those are reasonable doubts—all right?—about capital murder and you have some doubts about voluntary manslaughter, too. Again, let’s say you’re given two sets of verdict forms here. Okay? You’ve got guilty, not guilty for capital murder, and guilty, not guilty for voluntary manslaughter. Could you put a not guilty in both of those blanks if the evidence wasn’t there? A. (by Kucera) No, I couldn’t. Q. You couldn’t? A. No. Q. And why is that? A. Well, I mean, wasn’t there a man dead? Wasn’t there a man shot? Q. Let’s even assume this, Mark: there’s a man dead, and my client has been charged and indicted with that death. Okay? A. Okay. Q. And be honest with me because it’s important about this question. There’s a man dead, and my client is the one charged with this offense, and they fail to meet their burden of proof, and there are only, let’s say, two charges which you can find on, capital murder and voluntary manslaughter. All right. Knowing that, could you, with the facts I’ve just given you, sign not guilty on both lines? A. No. Q. And why is that? A. (No response). Q. Is what you’re telling me is that you believe because of the facts you’ve heard already that some punishment has to be meted out for the crime? A. Do what now? Q. Is what you’re telling me about the fact that you couldn’t put not guilty in either blank is—are you telling me that because my client is accused, there’s a man dead, and just it would be something you couldn’t do to find him not guilty of both offenses; is that right? A. That’s right. Q. All right. Do you have a strong feeling about that? A. No. Q. Well, could you—is it possible you could write not guilty in both blanks? A. (No response). Q. And you know, with the knowledge, knowing that he would go free for the charges against him in this case. A. I’d have to say no. Q. All right. That you couldn’t write not guilty? A. Right. * * * * * * Appellant then challenged Kucera for his inability to follow the burden of proof as to capital murder and voluntary manslaughter. In his. brief, appellant directs us to the voir dire testimony set out above for support of his argument that Kucera “had already reached some conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of appellant, and that such would affect him reaching a verdict. A review of said testimony indicates that this venireman, with the knowledge he possessed at that time, could not write ‘not guilty’ as his verdict in the case.” While it is true this portion of Kucera’s testimony reflects such a prejudice, the complete record of Kucera’s voir dire does not so reflect. During the State’s voir dire of Kucera, the prosecutor explained to Kucera that he had to be willing to follow the law to be a juror in this case. Kucera affirmed that he could take and follow the juror’s oath, be fair to appellant, follow the law, and find appellant not guilty if the law so required. The prosecutor also presented hypothetical fact situations encompassing the issues of self-defense and voluntary manslaughter and qualified Kucera on both issues. Upon subsequent questioning by defense counsel, Kucera indicated that he had changed his opinion as to whether he could find appellant not guilty. Kucera affirmed he could find the defendant not guilty of both capital murder and voluntary manslaughter even if self-defense was not an issue at trial. Defense counsel did not question the venireman any further in regard to this challenge. In determining whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying appellant’s challenge for cause, we review the complete voir dire of Kucera. Cordova, 733 S.W.2d 175. We hold there was no abuse of discretion in this instance. Kucera’s testimony does not evince an inability on his part to follow the law as to burden of proof on either capital murder or voluntary manslaughter because he had reached a conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of appellant. Appellant has failed to meet his burden and demonstrate that exclusion of this venireman was proper. Hernandez v. State, 757 S.W.2d 744, 753 (Tex.Cr.App.1988) (plurality opinion). Finding no merit in any of the grounds raised in appellant’s third point of error, we overrule it. In his fourth point of error, appellant asserts the trial judge erred in overruling his challenge for cause to venireman Robert Carmack because Carmack indicated he could not answer “no” to the third special issue under Art. 37.071, V.A.C. C.P., and he therefore had a bias or prejudice against the law applicable to the case upon which the defense was entitled to rely. Art. 35.16(c)(2). Appellant argues Carmack’s voir dire testimony makes it “abundantly clear that he could not afford appellant the right of hearing the testimony to decide whether or not he could answer such issue in favor of appellant.” The prosecutor presented Carmack with a hypothetical situation in which a man enters a convenience store armed with a sawed-off shotgun intending to rob the clerk. During the course of the robbery the clerk is killed by the robber because he either reached for a handgun or actually shot the robber and injured him. Carmack agreed with the prosecutor that the robber’s response to the clerk’s “provocation” was unreasonable in both situations. Car-mack told defense counsel, by answering “no”, that he could not envision any facts or provocation under which a defendant would be reasonable in killing another person when there was insufficient evidence of self-defense or sudden passion. Without citing a specific example, Carmack later told defense counsel he could envision such a situation but he “would have to hear everything to make up [his] mind[.]” Car-mack vacillated on this issue throughout his voir dire. The State concluded Car-mack’s voir dire with affirmances from him that he would set aside his personal views and answer the third special issue according to the law and evidence at trial. Car-mack told defense counsel “there would probably be cases where it would be [reasonable for a defendant to respond to provocation by killing someone], but I can’t think of any.” The venireman also stated that “there could be times when [killing someone] was maybe the only way out.” When reviewing the trial judge’s ruling on a challenge to a prospective juror, we recognize that the trial judge is in the best position to gauge, inter alia, the venireman’s sincerity and demeanor, and we therefore accord due deference to the decision of the trial court. Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 318 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), reh’g. denied, and cases cited therein. Such deference is appropriate in this ease since we are faced with a “cold” record and the prospective juror vacillated in his answers and sometimes appeared confused by the counselors’ questions. Carmack’s voir dire testimony is similar to that of the venireperson in Phillips v. State, 701 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 909, 106 S.Ct. 3285, 91 L.Ed.2d 574 (1986). In Phillips, 701 S.W.2d at 881, we concluded: In this case although the venireman initially said, by answering ‘no’, that he could not conceive of a case in which he could find that the victim provoked the robber, he later said, by answering ‘yes’, that he could conceive of a case where the killing by the robber was not unreasonable in response to provocation by the deceased, as contemplated by Art. 37.-071, supra. We find that under the testimony before us, the trial judge did not err in holding that the prospective juror was not disqualified on the basis of his bias for or against the applicable law. [citations omitted]. Following our decision in Phillips and according the trial judge due deference, we hold the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying appellant’s challenge for cause to Carmack on the basis of a bias or prejudice against the applicable law. Appellant’s fourth point of error is overruled. Appellant argues in his fifth point of error the trial court erred in failing to grant his challenge for cause to prospective juror Joann LeFleur because she had a bias or prejudice against appellant in that she did not presume him to be innocent. Appellant cites Art. 35.16(a)(9), (a)(10), and (c)(2) in his brief as the statutory bases for the challenge, but we find from reviewing the record that section (a)(10) of this article was not raised at trial. We will not address the merits of a claim raised for the first time on appeal. LaFleur’s voir dire examination on the presumption of innocence is relatively short. She stated she believed in the presumption of innocence and presumed appellant to be innocent even though defense counsel told the panel he thought appellant had committed an offense. LaFIeur did not express any feelings that appellant was guilty, but she thought it was important to proceed to trial in this case since appellant had “committed a crime, hasn’t he?” La-FIeur immediately answered “yes” to defense counsel’s inquiry whether she understood the State had the burden of proof and that the proof had to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense counsel did not challenge LaFIeur for cause at this time but proceeded to qualify her on other issues. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in denying appellant’s challenge for cause. See Mays v. State, 726 S.W.2d 937 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1079, 108 S.Ct. 1059, 98 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1987). The fifth point of error is overruled. In his sixth point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in overruling his challenge for cause to venireperson Kathryn Sowders. Appellant challenged Sow-ders purs