review appellant’s sole point of error. Accordingly, I would overrule appellant’s point of error, and affirm the judgment of the trial court. JACKSON B. SMITH, Jr., Justice (Assigned), dissenting. I agree with Justice Taft that appellant, Kelton Howard Opp, did not preserve his point of error for appeal, but for a different reason than Justice Taft. The basis for appellant’s objection to the introduction of the audio portion of the videotape was “fundamental error.” Appellant did not state, with any specificity, what error was fundamentally wrong, nor why it was wrong. Thus, appellant’s objection was general, apprised the court of no specific error, and did not preserve the arguments he makes for the first time on appeal. See Butler v. State, 872 S.W.2d 227, 237 (Tex. Crim.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). There is an exception to the rale against
holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error holding that under rule 103a1 njeither a general objection to the evidence nor a specific objection on other grounds will preserve the issue on review holding that a party must submit a proposed instruction to preserve an objection for appeal holding appellant failed to preserve error when trial judge overruled objection without comment and record gave no indication of basis for objection asserted on appeal holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal