questions on voir dire is of the greatest importance. Hernandez v. State, 508 S.W.2d 853, 854 (Tex.Crim.App.1974). However, there is no assertion by appellant that he was improperly restricted in his questioning of the panel, or even that portions of the voir dire were not recorded and transcribed. The error complained of by appellant is the failure of the court reporter to record certain bench conferences. The actual questioning of the veniremembers is fully recorded, and we may look to the record to see if the voir dire establishes that any panel member was biased or impartial. Even if the constitutional right to trial by an impartial jury were implicated, that right is not violated by every error in the selection of a jury. Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 391 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). The court of criminal appeals has made clear
holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error holding that the erroneous excusal of a venire member will call for reversal only if the record shows that the error deprived the defendant of a lawfully constituted jury holding that the violation of a rule of procedure prescribed by this court does not call for a reversal of a conviction unless the record discloses that noncompliance with rule resulted in prejudice or harm to the defendant holding that reversal for a new trial on liability is appropriate only where the error complained of affects only the issues of liability holding that error will not be presumed from a silent record and that without the relevant transcript there is insufficient evidence to review the alleged error and the appellant carries the burden of demonstrating the alleged error in the record