S.W.2d 523, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3230, 106 L.Ed.2d 578 (1989); Linder v. State, 828 S.W.2d 290, 301 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, pet. ref'd). When the accused in a criminal case offers before the jury the same evidence as that to which she later objects, she is in no position to complain on appeal. Withers v. State, 642 S.W.2d,486, 487 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Carr v. State, 726 S.W.2d 608, 610 (Tex-App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, pet. ref'd). See also Simmons v. State, 504 S.W.2d 465, 473 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 829, 95 S.Ct. 51, 42 L.Ed.2d 54 (1974) (finding no harm in the admission of extraneous offense when appellant’s mother first testified about the violation); Colburn v. State, 501 S.W.2d 680, 682 (Tex.Crim.App.1973) (<HOLDING>). By entering into evidence all of the checks
holding that error harmless because appellant failed to identify any specific harm from improper introduction of evidence holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered holding that where the case is technically not closed and the ends of justice may best be served by the admission of crucial evidence it is an abuse of the trial courts discretion to deny the introduction of such evidence holding appellant could not complain of the introduction of an index card into evidence when his counsel first offered the card in evidence holding that the appellant could not complain that an affidavit and mediated settlement agreement were not in evidence even though those documents were not formally offered and admitted