court in writing and court "shall answer any such communication in writing”); Walker v. State, 440 S.W.2d 653, 659 (Tex.Crim.App.1969) ("If the jury after retirement request additional instructions upon a question of law and the subject matter of the request is proper there can be no question but [tjhat the Court should give such instructions in writing.”); Gamblin v. State, 476 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex.Crim.App.1972) (Article 36.27 "requires the court to answer communications of the jury and give additional instructions upon questions of law when the request is proper. If not, the court should inform the jury that their request is not proper by referring to the court’s charge.”). 3 . Appellant also cites to other cases, including Matamoros v. State, 901 S.W.2d 470, 477 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>), and Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 802
holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless holding that a challenged jury instruction did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof when the trial court elsewhere instructed the jury that the state must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt recognizing that in prior decisions the court had used the term inconclusive to mean that dna evidence did not exclude an individual but clarifying that in the future the term inconclusive would be used only when a dna sample does not contain enough dna to draw a conclusion dna is degraded or for other reasons a dna test yields no results or the examiner draws no conclusion holding that admission of evidence is harmless if it is cumulative to other legitimately admitted evidence that establishes a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt holding trial court properly denied jury instruction that mere admission of dna evidence does not mean that court vouches for its reliability or that results should be accepted as proof beyond reasonable doubt because that is comment on weight of evidence by singling out particular evidence for special attention