when the reviewing court has grave doubt about its affect on the jury. In other words, a reviewing court should not reverse a conviction, even when the court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the non-constitutional error did not contribute to the jury’s decision on conviction or punishment, unless it has grave doubt about the effect of that error on the jury’s determinations. So, based upon King’s, interpretation of subsection (b), and Kotteakos, appellant’s conviction should be reversed only if we have grave doubt about the effect of the erroneous granting of the State’s challenge for cause on the jury’s determination. Under former 81(b)(2), we held the erroneous grant of a State’s challenge for cause was reversible error. Zinger v. State, 932 S.W.2d 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1996)(<HOLDING>); Howard v. State, 941 S.W.2d 102
holding wrongful granting of states challenge for cause reversible error recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge holding that error in denying such challenge is reversible error without demonstration of prejudice holding that if these preservation requirements are met any error in the denial of a challenge for cause is reversible error recognizing cause of action for wrongful death