With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". IN AN ATTEMPT TO OUTGAIN OR OUTDISTANCE ANOTHER VEHICLE. 3. NOW, IF YOU FIND FROM THE EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ON OR ABOUT THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, A.D., 2007, IN BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, THE DEFENDANT, RICKE SONY, DID THEN AND THERE INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY PARTICIPATE AS THE DRIVER OR OPERATOR OF A MOTOR VEHICLE TO OUTGAIN AND OUTDISTANCE ANOTHER VEHICLE, THEN YOU WILL FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE OF RACING AS CHARGED IN THE INFORMATION. The jury found Sony guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty days in jail and a $250.00 fine. Due Process Challenge In his first issue, Sony contends section 545.420 of the Code is unconstitutional on its face. More specifically, he argues the statute is void for vagueness in violation of the Due App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Fluellen, 104 S.W.3d at 167 (“A

A: holding that defendant did not preserve his challenge to alleged prosecutorial misconduct where he did not timely object
B: holding that defendant must object at trial to preserve as applied challenge for appeal
C: holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial
D: holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review
B.