D.I.B. questioned whether the trial court’s statement of the law regarding probation was accurate. While D.I.B.’s objections were not as specific as they might have been, the objections were adequate to call the issue to the trial court’s attention and to give the trial court an opportunity to cure the error. The error was thus preserved for appeal. IV The court of appeals did not discuss whether the trial court’s misstatement of its power to grant probation was harmful error. A harm analysis should have been undertaken, but a review of the record reflects that harm was adequately demonstrated. Counsel for D.I.B. informed the juvenile court that he would recommend to his client disposition by the court rather than by a jury if the court had the authority to gra Antonio 1987, no writ) (<HOLDING>); W.J.M.A. v. State, 602 S.W.2d 397, 399-400
holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal holding that fundamental error occurred and reversal was required when trial court failed to explain allegations or to explain adequately future use of adjudication record holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences was fundamental error that required reversal even though the juvenile had not raised this in his brief holding that failure to give proper instruction regarding disputed element of crime charged was fundamental error requiring reversal and stating that fundamental error is not subject to harmless error review holding that failure to explain allegations and possible consequences mandated reversal