and the child and the previous and subsequent relationship between the Defendant and the child. Ware v. State, 62 S.W.3d 344, 352 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2001, pet. ref’d). Graves did not ask for a limiting instruction when the extraneous offenses were introduced, nor did he object. Furthermore, he does not complain on appeal about the lack of an article 38.37 limiting instruction, but rather asserts that the trial court should have given a reasonable-doubt instruction pursuant to article 37.07. With regard to a limiting instruction, a trial court is not required to give a limiting instruction if a defendant fails to request a limiting instruction at the first opportunity, or "contemporaneous with the admission of the evidence.” Hammock v. State, 46 S.W.3d 889, 895 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (<HOLDING>). 6 . The following is an example of an article
holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes holding that failure to give a limiting instruction for 404b evidence is not plain error