With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Cook v. State, 884 S.W.2d 485, 492 n. 6 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Harrell v. State, 923 S.W.2d 104, 107-09 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.]), vacated on other grounds, 930 S.W.2d 100 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). “Where the application paragraph correctly instructs the jury, an error in the abstract instruction is not egregious.” Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 640 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1102, 120 S.Ct. 1840, 146 L.Ed.2d 782 (2000). Because the application paragraph correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense of sexual contact as charged in Count 3 of the indictment, we hold that Bazanes was not egregiously harmed by any error in the definition of sexual contact. See Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 640; see also Meanes v. State, 668 S.W.2d 366, 374-75 (Tex.Crim.App.1983) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 945, 104 S.Ct. 1930,

A: holding failure to give abstract instruction defining capital murder was not error when constituent elements of murder were set forth at length in application paragraph
B: holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill
C: holding that tendering of assault instruction in attempted capital murder case was sufficient under rule 5a18 to alert the trial judge and the commonwealth that simple assault is a lesserincluded offense of attempted capital murder and that the defendant believed sufficient evidence supported granting the instruction
D: holding there was no error in giving superfluous abstract instruction on transferred intent when the issue of transferred intent was not incorporated into the application paragraph
A.