With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was prejudiced by the bystander’s conduct. See Williams, 651 S.W.2d at 821. In Williams, we noted that the defendant did not make a bystander’s bill describing the event, did not subpoena any jurors to testify at the hearing on his motion for new trial, and did not present any juror’s affidavit as to how the incident may have affected the verdict. Id. We concluded that “it was incumbent upon the appellant to establish, by competent evidence, the probability of injury to himself as a result of the outburst.” Id.; see also Landry, 706 S.W.2d at 111-12 (noting that Landry failed to point to any particular verbal outcry or demonstrate how victim’s family’s emotional responses reasonably could have interfered with jury’s verdict); Ashley v. State, 362 S.W.2d 847, 850-51 (Tex.Crim.App. 1962) (<HOLDING>); Guse v. State, 97 Tex.Crim. 212, 214-15, 260

A: holding no injury to ashley shown by statement to widow of murder victim that was not in evidence because trial court gave sua sponte instruction to jury to disregard statement and statement did not contradict ashleys testimony
B: holding no injury to guse shown by statement from audience member that contradicted guses testimony because statement was irrelevant to defense presented
C: holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence
D: holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement
A.