60, 64-65 (Tex.Cr.App.1985). That situation exists with respect to the inquiry about the witness and appellant being potential witnesses against each other; however, that inquiry is not the basis of appellant’s ground of error. Rather, the situation is one where outside the jury’s presence, the court sustained appellant’s objection to the proposed question of appellant’s indictment in the Tulia case; yet, in violation of the court’s ruling, the exact question was asked and answered before the jury without any objection or request for relief. In this situation, appellant was required to secure a ruling adverse to him in order to preserve his appellate contention. Stanfield v. State, 450 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). Cf. Brazzell v. State, 481 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) (<HOLDING>). Appellant failed to object and receive an
holding that failure to object does not preclude raising the issue on appeal where erroneous evidence is offered in violation of an order in limine holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court recognizing a ruling sustaining a motion in limine merely adds a procedural step to the offer of evidence and that if the evidence is not offered there is nothing preserved to review on appeal 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 it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered