allegations are effectively restricted by the charge’s application of the law to the facts, which limits the jury’s deliberations to the allegations in the indictment supported by evidence. Id.; see also Sandig v. State, 580 S.W.2d 584, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1979). The Court of Criminal Appeals has evaluated cases on this issue and explained: Superfluous abstractions, those not necessary to an understanding of concepts or terms contained in the application paragraph, are generally innocuous. Reversible error only occurs in the giving of an abstract instruction when the instruction is an incorrect or misleading statement of a law which the jury must understand in order to implement the commands of the application paragraph .... The inclusion of a merely su rkana 2012, pet. ref d) (<HOLDING>); Trevino v. State, 440 S.W.3d 722
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that the trial courts definition of normal use was harmless error holding that even though trial courts definition of female genitalia was a comment on evidence and invaded province of jury the error was harmless holding that sentencing error is harmless if the error did not affect the district courts selection of the sentence imposed holding exclusion was harmless error