Id. (citations omitted). Here, because the jury’s verdicts contained surplusage that called into question the jury’s intent, the trial-court judge could have reasonably concluded that .the initial verdicts 'were ambiguous, and, on that basis, the court acted within its authority by sending the jury out to clarify its verdicts. Not - only must a trial court reject a verdict that is so ambiguous that the jury’s intent cannot be fairly ascertained, but the trial court’s instructions' to the jury on which it'relies to reach a'verdict should inform it about the applicable law. Here, the trial court could properly have provided the applicable law that the sentences in these cases would run concurrently. See Tex. Penal Code § 3.03(a); Gordon v. State, 633 S.W.2d 872, 879 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (<HOLDING>); Haliburton v. State, 578 S.W.2d 726, 729
holding that the trial courts truthful answer to the jurys question inquiring whether the sentences would run consecutively or concurrently was not improper holding appellant could not complain of jurys failure to answer question because the charge instructed the jury not to do so based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction holding that party that failed to object to instruction that jury not answer a question based on its answer to the prior question waived that partys right to have the jury make findings as to the subsequent question holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding appellant could not obtain a new trial so that jury could answer liability question because the charge instructed the jury not to answer the question based on its answer to a prior question and because appellant did not object to this instruction