to him — as he did in his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the relevant testimony of Officers Schlosser and Alderete and Williams need not be restated here. Taking that evidence as a whole and viewing it in a neutral light, we cannot say the jury’s verdict was clearly wrong or manifestly unjust. We overrule appellant’s second point of error. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 . The State contends that appellant forfeited his right to raise this error on appeal because he failed to contend that the evidence was factually insufficient at any time before the trial court. The State argues that a recent amendment to rule 33.1, adding subsection (d), now requires that criminal defendants preserve factual sufficiency challenges in jury tr El Paso 1996, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the commentary to the 2002
holding civil factual sufficiency preservation requirements do not apply in criminal context holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes holding that the general rules of preservation apply in probation revocation proceedings holding that there is no distinction having any first amendment significance between criminal libel and civil libel or criminal fraud and civil fraud for libelous or fraudulent speech both have no first amendment protection in either the civil or criminal context holding that more stringent requirements of  1823e do not apply retroactively