With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Penry v. State, 903 S.W.2d 715, 748 (Tex.Crim.App.1995); White, 779 S.W.2d at 828; Gutierrez v. State, 945 S.W.2d 287, 291(Tex.App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). There is no showing of harm when a proper instruction is given and an improper instruction is rejected. Appellant’s issues are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 2 . The other exception occurs when one of the defendants has a previous admissible conviction. Then severance of that defendant is mandatory. Id.; Loveless v. State, 800 S.W.2d 940, 945 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1990, pet. ref'd). That exception is not implicated in this case. 3 . With few exceptions, unsworn statements by an attorney are not "evidence.” See, e.g., Lott v. City of Fort Worth, 840 S.W.2d 146, 150 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); but see Peterson v. State, 961 S.W.2d 308,

A: holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof
B: holding that an attorneys unsworn statement does not establish a fact in absence of a stipulation and does not constitute competent evidence
C: holding that unsworn pleadings do not constitute proper summary judgment evidence
D: holding that generally an unsworn statement by counsel is not evidence in the context of a batson hearing
D.