jury as it did, Smith waived the error by not objecting. We overrule Smith’s first issue. In her second issue, Smith argues that the trial court’s instruction constituted an improper comment on the evidence. To preserve error on a trial court’s improper comment, a party must object at the time of the comment unless the comment is of a character that cannot be rendered harmless by proper instruction. Thus, if the trial court’s instruction to the jury was an improper comment on the evidence, Smith was required to object at the time the comment was made to pre serve the error unless the error could not be cured by instruction. Smith argues that the trial 2d 768, 833-34 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.), cert. dism’d, 485 U.S. 994, 108 S.Ct. 1305, 99 L.Ed.2d 686 (1988) (<HOLDING>). 3 . See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1. 4 . State v.
holding failure to brief argument constitutes waiver holding that the failure to object to a trial courts instruction constitutes waiver holding that failure to brief an argument constitutes waiver recognizing that failure to develop claim on appeal constitutes waiver holding that failure to object to trial courts refusal of further instruction to jury during deliberation results in waiver of issue on appeal