With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the trial court’s actions cured any harm. We overrule appellant’s seventh point of error. Reliability of Outcry Statement In appellant’s eighth point of error, he contends that he was denied the opportunity to determine the reliability of an outcry statement. He concedes that error was not properly preserved by objection, but contends that the error was fundamental and did not require objection. When the State offers an out-of-court statement pursuant to article 38.072 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, a defendant must object to the statement to preserve error for appellate review. Holland v. State, 802 S.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). Failure to object waives the complaint on appeal. Beckham v. State, 29 S.W.3d 148, 153 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). We overrule appellant’s eighth point of

A: holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal
B: holding complaints that article 38072 violates confrontation rights under federal constitution require objection to preserve error
C: holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error
D: holding that objection to instructions by codefendants counsel is sufficient to preserve any error
B.