assault and indecency with a child.”); see also Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002) 543 (defining "crotch” as "something in the form of an angle usu. less than a right angle formed by the parting (as from a trunk or body) of two legs .... ”). 4 . S.A. was fifteen years old at the time of trial, and shé is S.W.’s half-sister. 5 . D.B, was seventeen years old at the time of trial. 6 . Subsection (a)(1) referenced in article 38.37, section 2(b) includes prosecution under section 21.11 of the Texas Penal Code for indecency with a child. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.37, § 2(a)(1)(C). 7 . On appeal, the State contends Fisk waived this complaint because he did not object when the two witnesses testified. See Hudson v. State, 675 S.W.2d 507, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (<HOLDING>). We disagree with the State’s waiver argument.
holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered holding any error in admission of evidence cured when same evidence later admitted without objection holding it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection