With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tex. R. Evid. 803(4). 11 . See id.; see also Berman v. State, No. 02-12-00119-CR, 2014 WL 2145592, at *5 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Aug. 20, 2014, pet, ref’d). 12 . See De la Paz, 279 S.W.3d at 344. 13 . Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 76-77 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). 14 . Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 2837, 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004). 15 . Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77; Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (op. on reh'g), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 1466, 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). 16 . See Martines v. State, 371 S.W.3d 232, 251 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 23, 2011, no pet.). 17 . See Nichols v. State, 378 S.W.2d 335, 337 (Tex.Crim.App.1964) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Nethery v. State, 692 S.W.2d 686, 700

A: holding that potential prejudice can be cured by an appropriate iimiting instruction
B: holding that asking whether witness had taken lie detector test was error that could not be cured by instruction
C: holding almost any improper argument may be cured by an instruction to disregard
D: holding that a judges comment on the issues in the case although not technically correct could be cured by instruction
B.