and an abstract charge on a theory of law which is not applied to the facts is insufficient to bring that theory before the jury.” Ramirez v. State, 967 S.W.2d 919, 922 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1998, no pet.). The “abstract paragraphs serve as a glossary to help the jury understand the meaning of concepts and terms used in the application paragraphs of the charge.” Crenshaw v. State, 378 S.W.3d 460, 466 (Tex.Crim.App.2012); see also Plata v. State, 926 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.Crim.App.1996), overruled on other grounds by Malik v. State, 953 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Crim.App.1997). Ramirez goes on to state: An abstract statement of the law that goes beyond the allegations in the indictment ordinarily will not present reversible error because ordinarily such expansion on the illo 2013, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Here, Arteaga was charged with twenty-three
holding that the trial courts error in not allowing defendant to testify on direct examination as to nature and circumstances of prior convictions was not harmless error where credibility of the defendant was critical to the deliberations of the jury holding that the trial courts definition of normal use was harmless error holding exclusion was harmless error holding that the prosecutors argument injecting new facts based on specialized experience was harmless even though the first factor favored reversal because the trial court told the jury to disregard the comment and the evidence of the defendants selfdefense claim was tenuous holding that even though trial courts definition of female genitalia was a comment on evidence and invaded province of jury the error was harmless