Tex. R. Evid. 803(4). 11 . See id.; see also Berman v. State, No. 02-12-00119-CR, 2014 WL 2145592, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 20, 2014, pet, ref’d). 12 . See De la Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344. 13 . Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 76-77 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). 14 . Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 2837, 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004). 15 . Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77; Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (op. on reh'g), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 1466, 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). 16 . See Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 251 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2011, no pet.). 17 . See Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 700
holding that a judges comment on the issues in the case although not technically correct could be cured by instruction holding that asking whether witness had taken lie detector test was error that could not be cured by instruction holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard holding improper admission of extrinsic evidence may be cured by adequate limiting instruction