14 to 15 convictions, and then think Marcia Gardner is a lightweight.” No error is presented in this point because the record reflects the above statement was made at the bench and outside the hearing of the venire panel. In his final point of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting the State to voir dire the venire panel twice. Appellant asserts that because the prosecutor voir dired the same venire for two separate cases, he was effectively given the opportunity to voir dire the panel twice, where appellant was only given one opportunity. Appellant has cited no authority in support of his position, therefore, we find the point has been inadequately briefed and refuse to address it. Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(h); see Smith v. State, 907 S.W.2d 522, 532 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s thirteenth point of error is
holding under former texas rule of appellate procedure 74f predecessor to 381h appellant must present authority for its argument if such argument is to be considered on appeal holding an issue is deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal if the argument is raised in a brief but not supported by authority holding that the appellant waived this argument holding that the appellant waived an argument listed only in his summary of the argument holding that appellate court will not consider an argument on appeal that is different from the specific argument presented to the trial court even if it relates to the same general issue