to the jury on a television screen. Of the remaining photographs, two showed close-ups of the victim’s head, again one face-up and the other face-down; the others, which were taken by the medical examiner, depicted close-ups of the victim’s gunshot wounds to the head and buttocks and showed a close-up of the victim’s face. The surviving victim’s graphic, minute-by-minute description of the events at the Vogt Street residence — the words that were said, hearing her best friend shot in the other room, and her terror during these events — as well as the shocking photographs of the deceased victim, is simply not the type of evidence that can be filed away in some compartment of the mind and considered for only a limited purpose. See Taylor, 93 S.W.3d at 506; Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 397 (<HOLDING>); Hilliard v. State, 881 S.W.2d 917, 920
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 defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding the admission of expert testimony that exceeded the bounds of rule 704 was prejudicial despite the fact that the court gave the jury a limiting instruction similar to the instruction in this case recognizing that limiting instruction would not likely have neutralized the danger that the jury would lose sight of the specific issues they were to decide