Ms. Brumley could testify only to her opinion concerning this character trait or appellant’s general reputation in the community concerning this trait. Tex.R. Evid 405(a). See, e.g., Lancaster v. State, 754 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, pet. ref'd) (noting that a character witness must testify in the form of either opinion or reputation); Hunt v. State, 779 S.W.2d 926, 928 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1999,pet. ref'd). 4 . See Els v. State, 525 S.W.2d 11, 14 (Tex. Crim.App.1975) (“[t]he State may test a character witness with proper ’have you heard’ questions, but it may not transform, by its own questions, a witness who is not a character witness into one in order to be able to ask 'have you heard’ questions”); see also Hatley v. State, 533 S.W.2d 27, 29 (Tex.Crim.App.1976) (<HOLDING>); see generally, Bishop v. State, 869 S.W.2d
holding that state may not rely on its own questioning as an invitation to rebuttal concerning character of victim holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16 holding that party may not rely on its own testimony or affidavits to support its version of disputed fact issue in connection with summary judgment motion where party has asserted fifth amendment right not to answer questions concerning that veiy issue holding that where defendants failed to present rebuttal evidence the court was allowed to rely on the psrs finding that their false statements significantly impeded the investigation recognizing that a court may rely on matters of which a court may take judicial notice