and any incentives he was offered or received for his cooperation with HPD constitutes a Brady violation. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97 (requiring that State turn over material, favorable evidence to defendant). We review the trial court’s ruling on a confidential-informant motion for abuse of discretion. Sanchez v. State, 98 S.W.3d 349, 356 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd). We will disregard any error, however, unless it affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Tex.R.App. P. 44.2(b); Sanchez, 98 S.W.3d at 356-57 (stating trial court’s failure to order disclosure of confidential informant’s identify is non-constitutional error governed by Tex. R.App. P. 44.2(b)); see also Heard v. State, 995 S.W.2d 317, 321 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). A substantial right is affected when the
holding that a defendants right to an independent blood alcohol test means the right to a test that is not subject to government manipulation holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver holding that motions to dismiss based on forumselection clause should be analyzed under rule 12b3 holding trial courts failure to disclose confidential informants identity must be analyzed under substantial right test