defendant’s objection asserted only federal constitution as grounds). In Wyborny v. State, the defendant failed to state any grounds for the objection to the State’s question; however, the State’s question specifically referenced an event that occurred post-arrest and pre-Miranda. Id., 209 S.W.3d 285, 288, 290 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). This Court held that the specificity of the State’s question cured the defendant’s failure to state the Texas Constitution as grounds; thus, the defendant’s objection preserved the state constitutional challenge for appeal. See id. at 290. The court explained, “[T]he objection was specific enough to have put the trial court on notice of [defendant’s complaint].” Id.; see Lankston v. State, 827 S.W.2d 907, 910-11 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>); Samuel v. State, 688 S.W.2d 492, 495-96
holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection holding an issue was preserved in part because the trial court immediately understood the basis of the objection holding that defendants general objection to states specific questions regarding defendants failure to appear before grand jury was sufficient to put trial court on notice of objection based on defendants constitutional right to remain silent holding that although the defendant had preserved his objection to the constitutionality of a mental state requirement he had not preserved another constitutional objection holding that error was preserved by running objection because of defendants immediate objection to states specific question in combination with trial courts comments showing that it understood nature of defendants objection