twenty-seven, thirty and thirty-one, appellant complains the State indulged in improper jury argument. In each instance, appellant failed to make a timely objection and is complaining of the alleged errors for the first time on appeal. Generally, jury argument error is waived by the accused’s failure to object or request an instruction to disregard. Briddle v. State, 742 S.W.2d 379, 390 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 543, 102 L.Ed.2d 573 (1989). An exception arises, however, where the argument is so prejudicial that an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Romo v. State, 631 S.W.2d 504, 505 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); see also Montoya v. State, 744 S.W.2d 15, 37 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1227, 108 S.Ct. 2887, 101 L.Ed.2d 921 (1988) (<HOLDING>). In other words, unless the prosecutor’s
holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify holding that the prejudicial effect of a direct reference to an accuseds failure to testify normally cannot be cured by an instruction to disregard