Little, 991 S.W.2d at 866. The disclosure of Brady material during trial satisfies the requirements of due process “[i]f the defendant received the material in time to put it to effective use at trial.” Palmer, 902 S.W.2d at 565. A defendant’s conviction should not be reversed simply because the Brady material was not disclosed as early as it might have and should have been. Id. When Brady material is disclosed at trial, the defendant’s failure either to object to the admission of the evidence on this basis or to request a continuance waives the error “or at least indicates that the delay in receiving the evidence was not truly prejudicial.” See Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407, 421 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff'd on other grounds, 155 S.W.3d 184 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Smith v. State, 314 S.W.3d 576, 586
holding that failure to request continuance waives complaint that state withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of brady holding that defendant must request continuance and present brady complaint in motion for new trial to preserve complaint for appellate review holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish brady violation holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation holding that there was no brady violation because the exculpatory effect of the disputed documents was merely speculative