of counsel, and any other relevant information from the entire record. Id. The language objected to by Ochoa is from the Geesa v. State, 820 S.W.2d 154 (Tex.Crim.App.1991), reasonable doubt definition. The Court of Criminal Appeals has overruled Geesa to the extent that it requires trial courts to define reasonable doubt for the jury. Paulson v. State, 28 S.W.3d 570, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). The court has stated that “the better practice is to give no definition of reasonable doubt at all to the jury.” Id. The court further indicated that it would not be reversible error to include the definition if both parties agreed to provide it. Id. Ochoa contends that because the trial court included language from the Geesa definition of reasonable doubt over his obje App.-Waco 2002, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We have considered the analysis provided in
holding that it is error to conduct most of the jury selection process in the absence of the defendant holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding it was error to include language from geesa in absence of agreement between state and defense but such error caused no harm holding it was error to include language from geesa but such error was harmless holding that error in method by which interest from damages award was calculated was an error in substantive law not a clerical or mathematical error