Full opinion text
MAJORITY OPINION CHARLES W. SEYMORE, Justice. Appellant, David Mark Temple, was convicted of the murder of his wife, Belinda Temple, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant challenges his conviction in eighty issues, which are grouped into the following categories: (1) the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the jury’s verdict (issues one and two); (2) appellant’s due-process rights were violated because of the State’s Brady violations (issues three and four); (3) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine appellant regarding the veracity of other witnesses (issues five through fourteen); (4) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to inject unsupported and inflammatory facts during cross-examination of appellant (issues fifteen through twenty-four); (5) the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to engage repeatedly in improper jury argument (issues twenty-five through sixty-seven); and (6) the trial court erred by overruling numerous hearsay objections (issues sixty-eight through eighty). We affirm. I. Background Appellant was raised in Katy by Kenneth and Maureen Temple. Interstate 10 (“1-10”) runs east-to-west through Katy. Kenneth and Maureen lived in a house north of 1-10 and surrounded by fields in which appellant and his brothers, Darren and Kevin, hunted. At the time of Belinda’s death, Kenneth and Maureen still lived in that house. During the mid-1980s, appellant was a star linebacker on the Katy High School football team. After high school, appellant played football at Stephen F. Austin State University (“SFA”) in Nacogdoches. During college, appellant met and began dating Belinda. While dating, appellant and Belinda acquired a Chow-mix dog they named Shaka. Appellant and Belinda married in 1992 and spent the next two years earning post-graduate degrees from SFA and teaching and coaching in Livingston. In 1994, appellant and Belinda moved to Katy. Appellant was employed as an assistant football coach at Alief Hastings High School, and Belinda taught at Katy High School. They eventually bought a home south of 1-10 in the Cimarron subdivision, an approximately fifteen-minute drive from Kenneth and Maureen’s home. At the time of Belinda’s death, appellant and Belinda had a three-year old son, E.T., and Belinda was almost eight-months pregnant, expecting a girl. On Monday, January 11, 1999, Belinda was at work when she was informed E.T. was running a fever at daycare. During lunch, Belinda retrieved E.T. and took him home. At approximately 12:30 p.m., appellant arrived home to watch E.T., allowing Belinda to return to her school until around 3:30 p.m. Between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m., Belinda arrived at Kenneth and Maureen’s home to retrieve soup. She briefly spoke with Kenneth and then drove home. Belinda arrived home sometime before 4:00 p.m. Appellant claims that, after Belinda arrived home, he and E.T. left so that Belinda could rest. According to appellant, he drove his blue, short-bed pickup truck to the small park in his neighborhood, Cimarron Park. Appellant testified that shortly after arriving at the park, he and E.T. decided to go to a larger park, Peckham Park, several miles away, north of 1-10. Appellant claimed he stopped at a Brookshire Brothers grocery store north of 1-10 where he purchased drinks and cat food. Appellant and E.T. were videotaped entering the store at 4:32 and leaving at 4:38. Appellant testified he then decided to go to Home Depot to look at shelving for the baby’s room. Appellant and E.T. were videotaped entering Home Depot at 5:14 p.m. but were not videotaped exiting the store. Appellant and E.T. returned home and pulled into the garage. The Temples’ garage was detached from their home and had a door leading into their backyard. Appellant testified that he left E.T. in the garage, went into the backyard, and noticed the back door to the house was open, and the door’s window was broken. According to appellant, he immediately grabbed E.T. and took him across the street to the home of Michael and Peggy Ruggiero. Appellant banged on the door and yelled, “Mike, Mike, it’s me, David. Let me in.” Michael and Peggy opened the door, and appellant handed them E.T., told them his house had been burglarized, and asked them to call 911. Appellant then ran back to his house with Michael following. Appellant entered through the back gate and went into his house. Michael stopped at the gate when confronted by Shaka, but saw appellant enter his house and the back door close behind him. Appellant testified that he went upstairs and found Belinda’s body in the closet of the master bathroom. It is undisputed that Belinda was killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her head. At 5:38 p.m., appellant called 911. The 911 dispatcher instructed appellant to perform CPR on Belinda, but he responded, “I can’t. Her head is just gone.” While Michael was still holding the back gate to prevent Shaka from escaping, law-enforcement personnel began arriving at the Temple home. Appellant exited his house through the back door and announced that Belinda was dead. He then placed Shaka in the garage. More law-enforcement personnel arrived, and crime-scene investigators began processing the scene. Appellant was placed in the back of a patrol car. Kenneth and Maureen later arrived at the scene. That night, appellant and his parents were questioned at a local substation by detectives with the Harris County Sheriffs Office. Appellant gave a written statement regarding his and Belinda’s activities that day. Detective Charles Leith-ner questioned appellant about several apparent inconsistencies in his statement. Appellant and his parents were informed that appellant was a suspect in Belinda’s murder. Early the next morning, appellant left the substation and went to his parents’ home. Appellant and E.T. resided with appellant’s parents until the summer of 2001, when he remarried. In 2005, appellant was indicted for Belinda’s murder. In November 2007, a jury found appellant guilty as charged in the indictment and assessed punishment at life imprisonment. The trial court denied appellant’s timely filed motion for new trial. II. Sufficiency of the Evidence In his first and second issues, appellant argues the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction. While this appeal was pending, five judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that only one standard should be used to evaluate whether the evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction beyond a reasonable doubt: legal sufficiency. See Brooks v. State, 823 S.W.3d 893, 905-07 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (plurality op.); id. at 926-28 (Cochran, J., concurring). Accordingly, we will apply the legal-sufficiency standard when addressing appellant’s legal-sufficiency and factual-sufficiency arguments. See Pomier v. State, 326 S.W.3d 373, 378-79 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet. h.) (applying single standard of review required by Brooks). A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review A person commits murder if he intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person or intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)(1), (2) (West 2003). A person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. Id. § 6.03(a) (West 2003). A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist. Id. § 6.03(b). A person also acts knowingly if he is aware his conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. Id. When reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, we view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether the jury was rationally justified in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 898-900 (plurality opinion). Following the admonitions of the Court of Criminal Appeals in Brooks, this court may not sit as a thirteenth juror and substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder by reevaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id. at 904-05, 909-12; Dewberry v. State, 4 S.W.3d 735, 740 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); see also Sharp v. State, 707 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex.Crim.App.1986) (expressing the jury may choose to believe or disbelieve any portion of the testimony). We defer to the fact finder’s resolution of conflicting evidence unless the resolution is not rational. See Clayton v. State, 235 S.W.3d 772 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). Our duty as a reviewing court is to ensure that the evidence presented actually supports a conclusion that the defendant committed the crime. Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742, 750 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). Circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence in establishing the guilt of an actor, and circumstantial evidence alone can be sufficient to establish guilt. Hooper v. State, 214 S.W.3d 9, 13 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). The Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed murder convictions based solely on inferences raised by circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778-82; Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 49-52 (Tex.Crim.App.2004); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 564-65 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). An inference is a conclusion reached by considering other facts and deducing a logical consequence from them. Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 16. Speculation is mere theorizing or guessing about the possible meaning of facts and evidence presented. Id. A conclusion reached by speculation may not be completely unreasonable, but it is not sufficiently based on facts or evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Each fact need not point directly and independently to the guilt of the appellant, as long as the cumulative effect of all the incriminating facts are sufficient to support the conviction. Id. at 13. B. Analysis It is undisputed that sometime after 3:30 p.m. on January 11, 2009, Belinda was shot in the back of her head at close range by a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with double-ought buckshot that was likely privately reloaded. This evidence inarguably supports a finding that someone intentionally and knowingly caused Belinda’s death. We must examine the record to determine whether the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is legally and factually sufficient to support a finding that appellant was the killer. Appellant argues that the State’s case against him was premised solely on evidence of motive and opportunity and not on evidence actually supporting the elements of murder. He correctly notes that motive is not an element of any crime. See Russo v. State, 228 S.W.3d 779, 794 (Tex.App.-Austin 2007, pet. ref'd). However, evidence of motive is generally admissible because it is relevant as a circumstance tending to prove guilt. See id.; see also Clayton, 235 S.W.3d at 778-81; Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50; Harris v. State, 727 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). A substantial portion of the State’s casein-chief consisted of the prosecutors’ attempt to establish that appellant was a controlling and emotionally abusive husband who was involved in an extra-marital affair and, thus, had a motive for killing Belinda. As noted above, appellant was a football coach and teacher at Alief Hastings. He and Belinda were friends with fellow Alief Hastings football coach Quinton Harlan and his wife, Tammy. In the Fall of 1998, Alief Hastings coaches and teachers met every week for a “happy hour.” Appellant testified that he attended four or five happy hours. Quinton testified that he did not attend many of the happy hours and that appellant would chide him when he did not attend. Quinton also testified that when he and appellant did socialize, appellant would think of stories for Quinton to tell his wife regarding his whereabouts. According to Quinton, appellant said he was in control of his house, and told Quinton that he needed “to take control of [his] house and control of [his] wife.” On cross-examination, Quinton explained that appellant was not joking when he told Quinton to take control of his marriage. Quinton also testified that appellant could be volatile, had a controlling personality, and was meticulous in his planning. In 1998, appellant attended a high school reunion. According to Quinton, appellant told him that he met a former girlfriend at the reunion and “[t]hey were on the couch and they kissed. And I asked him if he had sex with her and he said, [’] No, everything but that.[’]” Tammy testified that Belinda was uncharacteristically submissive when she was in appellant’s presence. Tammy and Quinton testified that appellant called Belinda “fat” in front of them. Tammy explained that appellant made derogatory statements about the manner in which Belinda raised E.T. and kept the house and also called Belinda’s family “crazy, white trash, fat” and would say “he didn’t ever want her or [E.T.] around them.” Additionally, Brenda Lucas, Belinda’s twin sister, testified that, from her perspective, appellant was controlling. She also expressed that during her last visit to the Temple home, appellant made fun of Belinda’s “big butt.” This evidence supports a logical inference that appellant did not respect Belinda. At the beginning of the 1998-1999 school year, appellant and Quinton met Heather Scott, who was teaching English at Alief Hastings. Both men began a flirtatious relationship with Heather and occasionally saw her after school. Heather knew that appellant and Quinton were married. Appellant testified that on two or three occasions, he drove Heather home from a happy hour and kissed her goodnight. Appellant testified that he and Heather had sex twice in the Fall of 1998. Heather’s roommate, Tara Hall, testified that appellant was affectionate and polite toward Heather and “seemed to really care about her.” Further, appellant bought Heather a gold necklace for Christmas in 1999. Quinton and Heather testified that they kissed each other but did not have sex. Quinton testified that, in November 1998, appellant invited Quinton to appellant’s house. When Quinton arrived, appellant entered Quinton’s truck and they drove around the neighborhood. According to Quinton, he and appellant discussed their intentions with Heather. Appellant asked Quinton if he would leave his wife for Heather, to which Quinton responded, “No.” When asked the same question, appellant responded, “I don’t know.” In 1998, Heather invited appellant to a New Year’s Eve party at her townhouse. Appellant attended the party and spent two nights with Heather, returning home January 2, 1999. Heather testified that she and appellant had sex on January 1; appellant testified he does not remember having sex that day. As an alibi, appellant told Belinda he was hunting. Heather initially told police investigators that, on January 5, 1999, she informed appellant she did not want their “relationship to continue the way it had been.” In her second police statement, Heather stated that, on January 8, 1999, appellant told her, “I have totally fallen in love with you.” Furthermore, before a grand jury in 1999, Heather testified that appellant told her he was falling in love with her, and she replied, “I feel the same way....” At trial, Heather testified that the police interviewers were extremely abrasive and coerced her to add this information to her second statement and phrased it in their own words. She explained that when appellant told her that he loved her, it was playfully and “not an I-love-you-ah-ha-big moment.” Appellant testified that he never told Heather he loved her. Detective Tracy Shipley drafted Heather’s second police statement. Detective Shipley agreed that Heather did not want to sign the statement because it included that appellant had stated he loved her, but that she “eventually got [Heather] to sign it.” However, Detective Shipley denied that Heather signed “something she didn’t want to sign.” Additionally, Heather testified that for appellant to use the phrase “I love you” would be significant. Accordingly, viewing the foregoing in the light most favorable to the verdict, appellant was involved in a sexual relationship with Heather, was unsure if he was willing to leave Belinda for Heather, and told Heather he loved her less than a week before Belinda’s death. This evidence, coupled with evidence regarding appellant’s treatment of Belinda, supports reasonable inferences that appellant was unhappy with his marriage and had a motive for killing Belinda. However, “although evidence of an affair during marriage may provide a motive, an affair alone is not enough to connect that person to his or her spouse’s death.” Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 412, 427 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2008, pet. struck). There was also evidence supporting an inference that appellant could have been present when Belinda was murdered. After appellant arrived home to care for E.T., Belinda returned to school for a meeting that lasted until between 3:20 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Phone records indicate that Belinda called home at 3:32 p.m. Appellant’s father, Kenneth, testified that Belinda arrived at his home to retrieve soup Maureen had prepared and left at around 3:45 p.m. The drive from appellant’s parents’ home to the Temples’ home ordinarily took around fifteen minutes. In his statement to police, appellant indicated that Belinda arrived home at 3:45 p.m. At trial, he testified that she arrived home closer to 4:00 p.m. Several witnesses testified that Belinda was often tired and had swollen feet due to her pregnancy. Appellant testified, “I told Belinda to rest, I would take [E.T.] to the park and we would be back in time for supper.” Belinda had planned to meet with her girlfriends later that evening to play Bunco. Appellant testified he and E.T. drove his truck to nearby Cimarron Park; however, no evidence corroborates this testimony. According to appellant, within minutes of arriving at Cimarron Park, he and E.T. decided to drive to Peckham Park, located north of 1-10. Appellant testified that he and E.T. then stopped at a Brookshire Brothers north of I — 10 to purchase drinks. At 4:32 p.m., appellant and E.T. were videotaped entering Brookshire Brothers. Hence, at least thirty minutes elapsed between the time Belinda arrived home and the time appellant entered Brookshire Brothers. A detective with the Harris County Sheriffs Office testified that, in 1999, it was a twelve-minute drive from appellant’s home to Brookshire Brothers. If the jury disbelieved that appellant took E.T. to Cimarron Park, there were eighteen unaccounted-for minutes between when Belinda arrived home and appellant entered Brookshire Brothers. According to the medical examiner and appellant’s medical expert, there were too many unknown variables to determine the time of Belinda’s death. The only certainty is that she was killed sometime after her school meeting ended between 3:20 and 3:30 p.m. Notably, appellant presented evidence that a gun was fired in his neighborhood at a time when he was videotaped at Brook-shire Brothers. In January 1999, Alexander Roberts had three sons in elementary school. The Roberts family shared a back fence with appellant. On January 11, the Roberts brothers arrived home from school at around 3:57 p.m. According to the eldest brother, fifteen minutes after arriving home, they began watching a movie. Twenty-six minutes into the movie, the brothers heard what they believed was a gunshot. According to their testimony, the time of the gunshot was around 4:38 p.m. — the same time that appellant was videotaped leaving Brookshire Brothers. Although the Roberts brothers’ testimony supported appellant’s defense, the jury was free to disbelieve it and rationally could have done so because the Roberts brothers were children and no other witness testified that a gunshot was heard that day. Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence supports a reasonable inference that appellant could have been in his home when Belinda was murdered. Evidence impeaching appellant’s stated purpose for driving north of 1-10 on the afternoon of Belinda’s death was also a circumstance of his guilt. Appellant maintained that, after leaving Brookshire Brothers, he drove directly to Home Depot to look at shelving for the baby’s room. Appellant testified he drove eastward toward Home Depot. Notwithstanding appellant’s testimony that traffic was congested that afternoon, several witnesses testified that the drive time from Brook-shire Brothers to Home Depot was ten to fifteen minutes. Appellant and E.T. were videotaped leaving Brookshire Brothers at 4:38 and videotaped entering Home Depot at 5:14 p.m. Thus, there was a thirty-six-minute gap between when appellant left the Brookshire Brothers and entered Home Depot. More significantly, Bernard Bindeman testified that between 4:50 and 5:00 p.m., he was in his truck stopped at the intersection of Morton Ranch Road (running east and west) and Katy Hockley Cutoff (running north and south) when he saw appellant in a blue pickup truck heading south on Katy Hockley Cutoff. Appellant was heading from a location near to where his parents and other relatives lived and where he was raised. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports a reasonable inference that appellant lied to police concerning his purpose for driving north of 1-10. Lying to police is a circumstance of guilt. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50. There was also evidence supporting an inference that appellant lied when he said he placed E.T. in a car seat before they drove north of 1-10. Detective Holtke testified there was no child seat in appellant’s truck when he processed it. Photographs taken of appellant’s truck did not show a car seat. When asked at trial where the car seat was, appellant testified, “I have no idea.” Appellant testified he always placed E.T. in his car seat when they drove together, and Quinton and Tammy testified that they never saw appellant put E.T. in his truck without using a car seat. Evidence that appellant always used a car seat, but did not on the day of Belinda’s murder, supports a reasonable inference that appellant was in a hurry to drive away from his house. Another circumstance of guilt was testimony and physical evidence that appellant’s house was “staged” to give the impression a burglary occurred. Appellant testified that he noticed the window on his back door had been broken when he returned from Home Depot. The television in appellant’s living room was lying sideways on the ground, and a buffet in the dining room had several drawers open. Further, appellant’s mother later determined that several pieces of Belinda’s jewelry were missing, including two necklaces, two watches, and three sets of earrings. Accordingly, appellant argued his house was burglarized sometime while he was at the park and stores. However, Sergeant Dean Holtke, who was an investigator with the Harris County Sheriffs Office at the time of the murder, testified that the burglary appeared to have been staged. The back door of appellant’s house opened to a small foyer. Directly beyond the foyer was a couch, and to the left of the foyer was a living room. A wooden hutch was against the wall directly to the left of the door. Officers found considerably more glass shards in the living room than in the foyer area and found none on the couch. Sergeant Holtke testified this finding was consistent with the door being open when the glass was broken. Detectives also did not see damage to the hutch or dents on the inside of the back door, which tended to discredit appellant’s theory that glass was thrown into the living room when the back door slammed into the hutch. Sergeant Holtke opined that the television was dragged off its stand and placed carefully on the ground because the stand had fresh scrapes and the television was still plugged into the wall. The contents of the open drawers were undisturbed, and appellant’s jewelry was found on a tray in the master bedroom in plain view. Appellant agreed that, to the best of his knowledge, the burglar “didn’t take one single thing that belonged to [him].” Additionally, the jewelry Belinda was wearing was not taken. Finally, the location and timing of the alleged burglary were suspicious: the Temples lived in a corner home, and the burglary allegedly occurred during the day at a time when persons typically return home from work and school. See Routier v. State, 273 S.W.3d 241, 258 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (including in list of factors supporting “staging” that defendant’s “house would not have been an inviting target for a home invader”). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could have concluded that the burglary was staged and, thus, believed that Belinda’s missing jewelry was not the result of a burglary. Next, evidence of appellant’s behavior following Belinda’s murder, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, supports an inference of guilt. See Guevara, 152 S.W.3d at 50; Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 253 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (relying on defendant’s suspicious behavior following murder as a circumstance of guilt). First, law-enforcement personnel commented on appellant’s lack of emotion on the day of the murder. Deputy Virginia Kathleen Johnson and her partner were the first law-enforcement personnel to arrive at appellant’s house. According to Deputy Johnson, while she and her partner were standing outside the gate to appellant’s backyard, appellant exited through the back door of his house and said calmly, “My wife has been shot. She’s dead.” Deputy Johnson further testified that appellant did not appear to be upset and she did not see him cry. Detective Charles Leithner testified that, when he interviewed appellant later that evening, appellant was “shaking and bouncing,” did not look the detective in the eyes, never cried, and was hesitant in his answers. Additionally, Quinton testified that, a few weeks after Belinda’s funeral, he asked appellant if he would like to find the murderer, to which appellant responded, “[W]hat difference is it going to make. It’s not going to bring her back.” Second, appellant resumed his relationship with Heather shortly after Belinda’s murder. On January 13, appellant’s parents hosted a visitation at their house. Quinton and Tammy attended the reception. Quinton testified that, when he and appellant were alone, the first thing appellant asked was, “How’s Heather?” and “Is she doing okay? How is she holding up? Has she said anything?” Quinton testified that appellant later called him and apologized that he and Heather had to “go through this” and asked him to tell Heather he was sorry. Heather testified she received flowers from appellant on Valentine’s Day — a month after Belinda’s murder. Tara also testified that appellant visited Heather several times that spring and he and Heather planted flowers on the patio. Appellant’s neighbor, Natalie Scott, testified that she saw appellant at a steakhouse in September 1999 and he had his arm around a “thin, blonde-haired woman ... in a red dress.” Natalie explained that she attempted to talk to appellant, but he looked away. Kenneth testified he learned six months after Belinda’s death that appellant was dating Heather. Kevin and his wife testified that they were very upset when they learned appellant was dating Heather and did not speak to him for several months. Appellant and Heather married in June 2001. Third, appellant confronted Quinton and Tammy regarding their statements to the police and to a grand jury in April 1999. After testifying before the grand jury, they received a telephone call from appellant. When Tammy answered, appellant asked her what she had told the grand jury. Tammy responded, “We’re not supposed to talk about this.” When appellant posed the same question to Quinton, he responded, “I told the truth.” Later, appellant asked Quinton what he was telling the grand jury and the police. When Quinton answered, “I’m just telling them the truth,” appellant replied, “You know, you need to keep your mouth shut.” Af-terwards, Quinton was driving on 1-10 when he noticed appellant following him. When they came to a stop, appellant exited his truck, approached Quinton, and asked, “What are you saying to the police?” Again, Quinton responded, “I’m just telling the truth,” and appellant ordered, “You keep your damn mouth shut.” Similarly, appellant followed Tammy one evening when she was driving to her place of business. When Tammy noticed appellant, she sped to the business, grabbed her gun, and ran inside. Appellant pulled in front of the business but did not stop. These three examples of appellant’s behavior following Belinda’s death are circumstances indicating guilt. Appellant argues that no evidence supports a finding that he ever owned a 12-gauge shotgun, owned a reloader or reloaded double-ought shotgun shells, or handled a weapon on the day of the shooting. At trial, appellant and his family testified regarding the shotguns they owned during the 1980s. They were adamant Darren and Kevin owned 12-gauge shotguns but appellant owned only a 20-gauge shotgun. Kevin testified that in 1988 or 1984, the barrel on appellant’s 20-gauge became clogged and split when it was fired, injuring appellant. Kevin testified that he later sawed off the split barrel and eventually discarded the gun. Clint Stockdick was Kevin’s best friend during the 1980s. He testified that he began hunting with the Temples in 1984 or 1985, frequently hunted with Kevin, and hunted with appellant “[j]ust a couple of times.” Clint testified that he never saw the Temples use 20-gauge shells, both Kevin and appellant used 12-gauge shotguns, Clint never saw either of them shoot a 20-gauge shotgun, and Kevin showed Clint a 12-gauge shotgun with a split barrel. Additionally, Clint testified that the gun he saw Kevin use most frequently was a Mossberg 12-gauge shotgun; Kevin, however, testified that the Temples never owned a Mossberg shotgun. Although this evidence did not tie appellant to a specific murder weapon, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, it supported an inference appellant and his family were concealing information concerning their shotguns. Concealing incriminating evidence is a circumstance of guilt. See, e.g., Wells v. State, 578 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex.Crim.App.1979); Tezino v. State, 765 S.W.2d 482, 485 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, pet. ref d). Furthermore, although no evidence supported a finding that any member of the Temple family used double-ought buckshot or reloaded his own shotgun shells, the State need not connect appellant to a specific murder weapon or ammunition; a conviction may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence. See Hooper, 214 S.W.3d at 13. In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant murdered Belinda. See Brooks, 323 S.W.3d at 898-900 (plurality op.). The evidence supports a finding that appellant had motive and opportunity to murder Belinda, lied about the reason he was driving north of I — 10 on the afternoon of the murder and about placing E.T. in a car seat, had a questionable demeanor immediately following Belinda’s death, quickly resumed his relationship with Heather following Belinda’s death, confronted Quinton and Tammy regarding their statements to police and the grand jury, appellant’s house was “staged” to appear as if a burglary had occurred, and appellant and his family were untruthful regarding their shotguns. “While each piece of evidence lacked strength in isolation, the consistency of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, provide the girders to strengthen the evidence and support a rational jury’s finding the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.” Swearingen v. State, 101 S.W.3d 89, 97 (Tex.Crim.App.2003). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s first and second issues. III. Alleged Brady Violation In his third issue, appellant contends his due-process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), were violated because the State did not disclose exculpatory evidence regarding his next-door neighbor, teenager R.J.S., until after trial had begun. Additionally, in issue four, appellant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion for continuance in which he sought a reasonable time to utilize the untimely disclosed Brady material. A Brady complaint must be made as soon as its grounds become apparent or should be apparent. See Wilson v. State, 7 S.W.3d 136, 146 (Tex.Crim.App.1999); see also Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a)(1). Appellant asserted that he first learned of the undisclosed evidence regarding R.J.S. on October 22, 2007, a week into trial, when Detective Leithner testified and appellant was first allowed to review Detective Leithner’s police report. However, appellant waited twenty-one days to file a motion for continuance — after the State rested and appellant had presented evidence for four days. We hold that appellant did not complain regarding the State’s untimely disclosure as soon as grounds for an objection or complaint were apparent. Consequently, appellant did not preserve his Brady complaint. See Wilson, 7 S.W.3d at 146. Nevertheless, even assuming appellant preserved his Brady complaint, we conclude he has not established reversible error. Under Brady, a defendant must show (1) the State failed to disclose evidence, regardless of the prosecution’s good or bad faith, (2) the withheld evidence is favorable to the defendant, and (3) the evidence is material, i.e., there is a reasonable probability had the evidence been disclosed, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Hampton v. State, 86 S.W.3d 603, 612 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). The defendant bears the burden of showing that, in light of all the evidence, it is reasonably probable the outcome of the trial would have been different had the prosecutor made a timely disclosure. Id. The mere possibility that an item of undisclosed information might have helped the defense or affected the outcome of the trial does not establish materiality in the constitutional sense. Id. In January 1999, R.J.S. was a high school student who lived with his parents next door to the Temples. In his motion for continuance, appellant complained that the State failed to timely disclose the following facts: (1) R.J.S. lied about skipping school on the day Belinda was murdered; (2) R.J.S. gave three conflicting statements to the police and failed three polygraphs; (3) R.J.S. and his friends were in appellant’s neighborhood around the time of the murder, had smoked marijuana that afternoon, and were looking for more marijuana; (4) R.J.S. saw appellant driving in the neighborhood sometime before 4:30; and (5) a 12-gauge shotgun containing a spent double-ought buckshot shell and belonging to RJ.S.’s father was found after the murder. With the exception of R.J.S.’s polygraph failures, the remainder of these facts were presented to the jury. During redirect-examination, defense counsel asked appellant whether he believed R.J.S. could have been involved in Belinda’s murder. Through a methodical series of questions emphasizing the above facts, appellant answered affirmatively. The State called R.J.S. as its sole rebuttal witness, and appellant thoroughly cross-examined him regarding these facts. Further, during closing argument, appellant focused on RJ.S.’s alleged participation. Therefore, the jury considered the aforementioned untimely disclosed facts. Considering the heavy emphasis he placed on R.J.S. during trial, appellant has not established that there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different had the State disclosed these facts earlier. See Shpikula, v. State, 68 S.W.3d 212, 220 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. ref'd) (“If the defendant received the material in time to put it to effective use at trial, his conviction should not be reversed simply because it was not disclosed as early as it might or should have been.”). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s third and fourth issues. IV. Evidentiary and Jury-Argument Rulings Appellant presents seventy-five issues in which he complains about the trial court’s rulings and the prosecutors’ alleged misconduct during the evidentiary and jury-argument phases of trial. We first determine whether the court’s rulings were erroneous. We then determine the cumulative effect of any errors on the jury’s verdict. We begin with those issues pertaining to admission of evidence. A. Evidentiary Rulings We review a trial court’s decision to admit evidence under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Shuffield v. State, 189 S.W.3d 782, 793 (Tex.Crim.App.2006). Under this standard, if the trial court’s ruling was within the zone of reasonable disagreement, we will not disturb the ruling. Bigon v. State, 252 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Tex.Crim.App.2008). To preserve error for appellate review, a defendant must timely object to the error during trial. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a). If the objection is overruled, the defendant has preserved error. When the objection is sustained, and the defendant desires to preserve argument that the error incurably infected his right to a fair trial, he should request an instruction to disregard and move for a mistrial. See Jackson v. State, 287 S.W.3d 346, 353-54 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009, no pet.). Failure to request additional relief after an objection is sustained preserves nothing for review. See Caron v. State, 162 S.W.3d 614, 617 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Several issues pertain to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of appellant. The parameters of cross-examination are within the trial court’s discretion, and its decision is not subject to reversal on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). A defendant who exercises his right to testify is subject to the same rules governing examination and cross-examination as any other witness. Felder v. State, 848 S.W.2d 85, 99 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The scope of cross-examination is wide open, and once the defendant testifies at trial, he opens himself up to questioning by the prosecutor on any subject matter that is relevant. Caron, 162 S.W.3d at 617. 1. Questions Regarding Witness Veracity In issues five, seven, nine, eleven, and thirteen, appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to question appellant regarding the veracity of other witnesses’ testimony. We first describe the testimony about which appellant was asked to comment. Tammy testified she heard appellant call Belinda “fat,” criticize her clothing, house work, and how she raised E.T., and express that her family was “crazy, white trash, fat, and ... he didn’t ever want her or [E.T.] around them.” Quinton testified he heard appellant call Belinda fat and that appellant told him Belinda used to be an aerobics instructor and “looked good” but “[n]ow she’s fat.” Tammy also testified she witnessed between twenty and thirty times Belinda’s routine when returning home and that Belinda would remove her shoes when she arrived home. Brenda Lucas visited the Temples from December 27, 1998, until January 1, 1999. Brenda testified that appellant “was making fun of Belinda’s big butt” during the first evening of the visit. On December 30, Brenda and Belinda celebrated their thirtieth birthday. Brenda testified she did not see appellant give Belinda a birthday gift. Brenda further testified that, during her visits to the Temples’ home, she observed Belinda remove her shoes when she arrived home. Appellant vehemently denied ever calling Belinda “fat” or making derogatory statements about her family. Appellant explained that he and Belinda jokingly referred to her “butt,” but “for no stretch of the imagination would I ever seriously call my wife fat ever, without a doubt.” He testified that he gave Belinda perfume and pajamas for her birthday, as well as gifts for Christmas and their anniversary. Finally, he testified that Belinda did not take her shoes off when she arrived home. On the first day of appellant’s cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant whether Tammy “just made all that up” regarding his ridiculing Belinda’s weight. The trial court overruled appellant’s objection to the form of the question, and appellant answered, “I know she made it up.” Cross-examination continued the next day, and the following exchanges occurred: [Prosecutor:] So did Brenda try to mislead this jury when she told them that she never saw you give her sister a birthday present? [Defense Counsel:] Object to the form of the question. [Court:] That’s sustained. [Prosecutor:] Did Brenda lie? [Defense Counsel:] And I object to the form of the question. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Defense Counsel:] It’s asking one witness to comment on ... the truth of the testimony of another. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Prosecutor:] Mr. Temple, did Brenda lie? [Appellant:] Yes ma’am, she did. [Prosecutor:] Well, do you recall Quinton Harlan telling the truth and admitting to this jury that he went over to Heather’s house and kissed her? [Defense Counsel:] I object to the form of the question, telling the truth and admitting to something. [Court:] That’s sustained. [Prosecutor:] Do you remember Quinton Harlan telling this jury that he went over to Heather’s house and kissed her? [Appellant:] I remember that, and Quinton told me that himself. I knew that. [Prosecutor:] And so he told the truth? [Defense Counsel:] I object to the form of the question. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Appellant:] On that statement, yes, ma’am. [Prosecutor:] Are you saying he lied on other ones, Mr. Temple? [Defense Counsel:] I object to asking the witness to use the term “lied.” There are many reasons for incorrect testimony. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Prosecutor:] Are you saying that Quinton Harlan lied on anything, Mr. Temple? [Appellant:] If you could ask me single-by-single, I could tell you which ones are truth and which ones are not. Him kissing Heather, I know for a fact that that happened and he told me about it himself. [Prosecutor:] And the things that Tammy Harlan told this jury the names that you used to call your wife, making fun of her weight, making fun of how she looked, those things were the truth, weren’t they? [Appellant:] They were not. I answered that question yesterday. [Prosecutor:] So Tammy Harlan lied about that? [Defense counsel:] I object to terming it a lie. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Appellant:] Tammy and Quinton both lied several times. [Prosecutor:] So we’ve got Tammy lying, Quinton lying, Brenda Lucas lying, right? [Appellant:] I would agree with that, yes. [Prosecutor:] And you had a wife who liked to take her shoes off the minute she hit the door anyway, didn’t you? [Appellant:] I would not agree with that. [Prosecutor:] So when Brenda Lucas and Tammy Harlan said that, they lied about that, too? [Defense counsel:] Excuse me. I object to the form of the question. [Court:] And that’s overruled. [Appellant:] I don’t know if that’s what they think they saw.... I’m not calling them a liar about that. I know and spent every day with my wife. I know that when she came in the door, she would not flip her shoes off. It is well-settled that an attorney may not impeach one witness’s testimony with the testimony of other witnesses. See Lopez v. State, 200 S.W.3d 246, 257 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Ex parte McFarland, 163 S.W.3d 743, 755 n. 37 (Tex.Crim.App.2005)). Thus, we hold that the trial court erred by overruling appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s veracity questions and will consider this error in our harm analysis. 2. Appellant’s Cross-Examination In issues fifteen through twenty-four, appellant contends the State asked him irrelevant and inflammatory questions in an attempt to demonize him in front of the jury. Appellant argues that these questions abrogated his right to a fair trial. During cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant whether the reason the Harlans “stopped being you all’s best friends was because Tammy Harlan got tired of the way you were treating Belinda?” The prosecutor also asked appellant how the second night of his high school reunion could have been a “wonderful night” when Tammy “had to tell Belinda afterwards ‘It’s okay, Belinda. You’re a beautiful girl. Don’t let all that bother you.’ ” The trial court sustained appellant’s objection to these questions, but appellant did not request an instruction to disregard or move for a mistrial. Thus, the trial court committed no error because it granted appellant all the relief he requested. See Young v. State, 137 S.W.3d 65, 69 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). We overrule appellant’s fifteenth and sixteenth issues. In issues seventeen and eighteen, appellant complains about the prosecutor’s questions regarding his unborn daughter. On direct-examination, appellant testified that he loved his unborn daughter and “wanted her more than anything.” On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked appellant whether he and Belinda argued regarding his not wanting a daughter. [Prosecutor:] And you all had many, many arguments about the fact that you didn’t want a baby daughter, didn’t you, Mr. Temple? [Defense counsel:] That’s a lie and I object to it and it’s improper. There’s no evidence to support that. [Court:] That’s sustained. [Prosecutor:] Didn’t you have arguments about that, Mr. Temple? [Appellant:] Absolutely not. [Prosecutor:] Didn’t you argue about the fact that you were not excited about the idea of a baby daughter when Brenda Lucas was visiting at your house? [Defense counsel:] This is improper cross-examination, injecting facts. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Appellant:] I never argued with my wife about not wanting my daughter. It was planned from the very beginning and the first day. Appellant did not request that the jury be instructed to disregard the prosecutor’s initial question after the trial court sustained his objection and did not object when the prosecutor ignored the court’s ruling. However, appellant preserved his complaint regarding the prosecutor’s question concerning appellant’s argument with Belinda when Brenda was visiting. “[T]he prosecution cannot attempt to establish a theory of appellant’s action by questions alone, with no basis of fact.” Hartman v. State, 507 S.W.2d 553, 556 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); see also Keener v. State, 164 Tex.Crim. 439, 442, 300 S.W.2d 85, 87(1957) (“[UJnless the questions are propounded in good faith, the attorneys for the State should refrain from attempting to establish their theory by [questions] alone.”). Prior to appellant’s testimony, no evidence had been presented indicating that appellant did not want his daughter. Nevertheless, the trial court had informed the parties: “I’m going to assume both of you lawyers are asking your questions in good faith until someone tells me otherwise.” During the hearing on appellant’s motion for new trial, defense counsel questioned the prosecutor regarding her basis for these questions. The prosecutor testified that she received information from members of the Temple family and Belinda’s girlfriends that the Temples argued about their unborn daughter; the prosecutor was not asked whether Brenda was included in this group. Consequently, we cannot discern from the record whether the prosecutor asked the subject question without a basis in fact. See Hartman, 507 S.W.2d at 556; Keener, 300 S.W.2d at 87. We also note that appellant opened the door by testifying on direct-examination that he wanted his daughter “more than anything.” Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s seventeenth and eighteenth issues. In issue twenty, appellant complains about the following question: [Prosecutor:] [Y]ou didn’t give a flip about the Lucases, did you? [Defense counsel:] I object to the form of the question and injecting unsworn testimony from the prosecutor. [Court:] That’s overruled. After the objection was overruled, appellant did not answer, and the prosecutor posed a different question. There was testimony that appellant called Belinda’s family (the Lucases) “crazy, white trash, fat, and ... he didn’t ever want her or [E.T.] around them.” Thus, there was an evidentiary basis for this question. Furthermore, whether the form of this question was actually argumentative may have turned on the prosecutor’s tone and demeanor when she asked it. Nevertheless, we will assume arguendo that the question was argumentative and consider its effects in our harm analysis. In his twentieth and twenty-first issues, appellant complains that the following exchange abrogated his right to a fair trial, necessitating a mistrial: [Prosecutor:] Who have you ever told that Shaka was in the garage and that’s how the burglar got past him? [Defense counsel:] Is she asking what he said to me. I want to know what she’s trying to— [Court:] That’s overruled. [Prosecutor:] Mr. Temple, you just said you have. Well, who have you told? [Appellant:] I’ve told [Defense counsel]. It was not something that was dreamed up. [Prosecutor:] No, it’s just lied about. [Defense counsel:] Excuse me. Now that’s — Judge, you’ve got to stop that kind of stuff. [Court:] Members of the jury, remember your admonitions. Step to your jury room for a moment, please. (Outside presence of the jury) [Court:] All right. Everyone be seated. [Prosecutor], that last question was uncalled for. We cannot have that type of conduct. [Prosecutor:] Yes, sir. Could you please instruct the witness to answer my questions. [Court:] I will do that also. [Defense counsel:] Now— [Court:] Now just a minute, [Defense counsel]. Mr. Temple, I want you to listen to the questions that each lawyer asks you, answer the question, answer it directly. Most of them can be answered yes or no. You don’t volunteer any additional information, but listen to the questions and answer them. Now, [Defense counsel]. [Defense counsel:] Judge, that last question by [Prosecutor] cannot be attributed to lack of experience, it can’t be attributed to ignorance, it can’t be attributed to negligence. She is one of the finest prosecutors in the state, and that was calculated, it’s improper, it goes beyond the record, it is highly inflammatory, and we object to it. [Court:] Well, your objection was sustained, and I will certainly admonish the jury that they can’t consider it in any way. [Defense counsel:] Yes, sir. And I don’t think any admonishment — with all due respect, I don’t think any admonishment can cure the harm. What we have is a prosecutor, who holds the office of assistant district attorney, making a statement about a lie in front of this jury. Now, the jury may put far more weight on that than it is due, far more than it deserves. It deserves absolutely no weight at all. She can holler and scream in argument, but it is improper and clearly improper and she knows better to do that in a cross-examination; and, therefore, we move for a mistrial. [Court:] Okay. And that’s denied, sir. [Defense counsel:] Do I need to do all that in front of the jury? [Court:] No. The record has you exactly — your motion, and it can go up on appeal on that issue. Bring me the jury and I will admonish them to totally disregard. (Jury seated) [Court:] All right. Everyone be seated. Members of the jury, the last question by [the prosecutor] you will totally disregard and not consider it for any purpose whatsoever. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the prosecutor accused appellant of being a liar, not indirectly through a question, but as a matter-of-fact assertion. This action was clearly prosecu-torial misconduct. See Stein v. State, 492 S.W.2d 548, 551 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) (explaining prosecutors should not make improper arguments or sidebar remarks because defendant should be convicted upon evidence presented, without attempts to inflame or prejudice the minds of the jurors). The trial court sustained appellant’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the comment, but denied appellant’s request for a mistrial. We will consider in our harm analysis whether the court erred by denying mistrial. Appellant testified that, on January 13, 1999, he and his father and brothers convened a family meeting at appellant’s parents’ house, during which appellant informed his family that he had been unfaithful to Belinda. In his twenty-third issue, appellant complains that the following questions were without factual basis: [Prosecutor:] [W]as the real discussion in the family meeting about all those shotguns, Mr. Temple? [Defense counsel:] You know, that’s bad faith. There’s no— [Court:] That’s overruled. [Defense counsel:] We object to it. It’s injecting unsworn testimony from the prosecutor. [Prosecutor:] Judge, that’s a speaking objection. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Prosecutor:] We’ve got a Winchester, a Mossberg, a Savage and a Remington. In your family meeting that you had with your brothers, with the Temple men, on January the 13th, did you all talk about those shotguns? [Appellant:] Absolutely not. There was no reason to. [Prosecutor:] Did you all talk about the sawed-off shotgun? [Appellant:] There’s — no. Prior to these questions, nothing in the record reflected that the Temple men discussed shotguns at their January 13, 1999 meeting. Instead, all evidence indicated the subject matter of the meeting concerned appellant’s unfaithfulness to Belinda. However, appellant has not established that the questions were asked in bad faith without factual basis. At the time the questions were posed, he did not request to take the prosecutor on voir dire. Further, at the motion-for-new-trial hearing, the prosecutor was not asked if she had a factual basis for making this inquiry. Hence, we cannot determine from the record whether the prosecutor asked the question in bad faith without a basis in fact. See Keener, 300 S.W.2d at 87; Galley, 671 S.W.2d at 124. We overrule appellant’s twenty-third issue. In issue twenty-four, appellant argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for mistrial after the prosecutor expressed that appellant’s entire family stopped speaking with him after the murder. Kevin and Rebecca “Becky” Temple testified that there was a period following Belinda’s murder when they did not speak with appellant. Later, the prosecutor posed the following question to appellant: [Prosecutor:] Why did your own family quit speaking to you? [Defense counsel:] Now, wait a minute. [Court:] That’s sustained. [Prosecutor:] You heard— [Defense counsel:] Please, Judge, please control her. [Prosecutor:] Judge— [Court:] Members of the jury, remember your admonitions. Step to your jury room for a moment. (Outside presence of the jury) [Court:] [Prosecutor], you’re going to have to refrain from continuing to ask legally objectionable questions. You can ask that question, did you and your family stop speaking, and then go into the why, but you’re interjecting things into the case that just aren’t in evidence. [Prosecutor:] Judge, Becky Temple testified that there came a time where she and her husband quit speaking to the defendant and Heather. That’s in evidence. [Court:] Your question was the family. If you want to talk about Becky Temple, you can do that, but your question said the family. [Prosecutor:] Yes, sir. [Court:] Bring me a jury. [Defense counsel:] I ask that the jury be instructed to disregard. [Court:] I will. [Defense counsel:] And because it was deliberate, we ask for a mistrial. [Court:] That’s denied. Bring me a jury, please. (Jury seated) [Court:] Members of the jury, you will totally disregard the last question of the prosecutor and not consider it for any purpose whatsoever. Thus, the trial court sustained appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s overly broad reference to his entire family, instructed the jury to disregard the question, but denied appellant’s motion for mistrial. We conclude the foregoing question was not so “clearly calculated to inflame the minds of the jury” that the instruction to disregard was futile. Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 219 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Carter v. State, 614 S.W.2d 821, 824-25 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)). Although the prosecutor referred to matters outside the record when she asked appellant why his entire family, instead of just Kevin and Rebecca, stopped speaking to him following Belinda’s murder, the error was quickly remedied by the court’s instruction to disregard and we presume the jury followed the instruction. See Colburn v. State, 966 S.W.2d 511, 520 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). Thus, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s motion for mistrial See Archie v. State, 221 S.W.3d 695, 699 (Tex.Crim.App.2007). We overrule appellant’s twenty-fourth issue. 3. Hearsay-by-Inference Contentions We next consider issues sixty-eight through eighty, in which appellant contends the trial court erred by overruling his objections to certain “back-door” hearsay. “[Wjhere there is an inescapable conclusion that a piece of evidence is being offered to prove statements made outside the courtroom, a party may not circumvent the hearsay prohibition through artful questioning designed to elicit hearsay indirectly.” Schaffer v. State, 777 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). Whether the disputed testimony violates the hearsay prohibition necessarily turns on how strongly the content of the out-of-court statement can be inferred from context. Head v. State, 4 S.W.3d 258, 261-62 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). In his sixty-ninth and seventy-first issues, appellant argues the trial court erred by allowing Detective Leithner to testify regarding statements made by Heather Scott. [Prosecutor:] When you were interviewing Heather Scott the day you took her first statement, did she have any other concerns about all of this that she voiced to you? Yes or no? [Defense counsel:] Excuse me. This calls for hearsay. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Sgt. Leithner:] Yes. [Prosecutor:] Did you try to reassure her? [Sgt. Leithner:] Yes. [Prosecutor:] What did you tell Heather Scott? [Defense counsel:] Well, that’s hearsay by implication. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Sgt. Leithner:] I told her that we were not going to disclose this information with her employers. [Prosecutor:] With who? [Sgt. Leithner:] Her employers. [Prosecutor:] At the school? [Sgt. Leithner:] Yes, ma’am. [Prosecutor:] Because she worked there? [Sgt. Leithner:] Because she worked at the same school that Coach Temple did. Assuming the trial court erred by overruling appellant’s objection, we conclude that this testimony did not substantially affect the jury’s verdict; notwithstanding the accusations against appellant, the jury could have determined there were other obvious reasons why Heather would not want her employers to learn about her extra-marital relationship with appellant. Thus, we overrule appellant’s sixty-ninth and seventy-first issues. In his seventy-third issue, appellant complains about Tammy Harlan’s testimony: [Prosecutor:] Did you ever have discussions and conversations with Belinda about that difference or change [in her demeanor] you observed [when she was in the appellant’s presence]? [Tammy Harlan:] Yes. [Prosecutor:] Did you ever say anything to her about that? [Tammy Harlan:] Yes. [Defense counsel:] Again, I am going to object because this is obviously hearsay by implication. [Court:] That’s overruled. [Prosecutor:] You understand, becaus