life imprisonment in a hypothetical situation that was an accurate statement of the State’s case); White v. State, 629 S.W.2d 701, 706 (Tex.Crim.App.1981) (asking a member of the venire whether he could consider probation where a knife was used to commit the murder); Aquino v. State, 710 S.W.2d 747, 752 (Tex.App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, pet. ref'd) (asking a potential juror whether he would consider probation where a knife was used to commit the murder). Here, the facts injected by defense counsel were not a description of the offense. The appellant’s counsel asked a proper question to determine bias or prejudice against the appellant based on his mental illness. I would hold the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a proper question. See Maddux, 862 S.W.2d at 592 (<HOLDING>). 1 . In fact, the jurors responded in
holding denial of a petition to vacate a termination order was reversible error holding that while the prosecutors question was improper in light of the overwhelming evidence there was no reversible error in the denial of defendants motion for mistrial holding the denial of a proper question is always reversible error holding the denial of a bill of particulars was not reversible error because it failed to cause the defendant any prejudice holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error