the verdict is entered; or (2) the disqualification was not discovered or brought to the attention of the trial court until after the verdict was entered and the defendant makes a showing of significant harm by the service of the disqualified juror. The article applies only to absolute disqualifications (those that could not be “waived” or, more precisely, consented to) and when the trial court fails to disqualify the absolutely disqualified juror on its own motion. If either party challenged such a juror for cause, the trial court’s ruling on the challenge would be the basis of the appeal. There would be no occasion for Article 44.46 to apply. The error in the court of appeals’ reasoning is highlighted by its citation, “See also Pogue v. State, 553 S.W.2d 368, 370 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) (<HOLDING>)” This is the kind of holding that Article
holding that where the trial court is on notice of error in seating the panel before the jury is sworn and the error is not corrected automatic reversal is required holding that a plain error that is fatal to a conviction is sufficient to warrant reversal holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding that even if there is error in failing to award nominal damages to a plaintiff such error is not a basis for reversal holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis