comment.” Although Appellant argues that the trial court’s admonition was insufficient, Appellant did not offer an additional or alternatively-worded instruction. Nor did he request further instruction. Applying the appropriate balancing test and standard of review, we hold that the trial court’s instruction cured any harm from the improper argument and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant’s motion for mistrial. We overrule Appellant’s third issue. Conclusion Having overruled Appellant’s three issues on appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment in the capital murder case. Further, although Appellant does not specifically direct us to any complaint regarding the trial court’s proceeding to adjudication in Cause No. 10386 -Fort Worth 1995, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>). 4 . See Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249,
holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding unrecorded objection made at bench did not preserve error regarding admission of evidence holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding error if any was not preserved regarding questions proposed at bench conference but disallowed because the record does not reveal what was said at the bench holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial