With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.W.2d 355, 360 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1990, pet. ref'd); Parker v. State, 792 S.W.2d 795, 798-99 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, pet. ref'd). We review the trial court’s ruling on an objection to a hypothetical used in voir dire for abuse of discretion. Id. at 798. As a general rule, a witness may not recommend a particular punishment to the factfinder. Johnson v. State, 987 S.W.2d 79, 87 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd); see Sattiewhite v. State, 786 S.W.2d 271, 290 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (involving expert testimony). For this reason, the Corpus Christi court of appeals has concluded that a voir dire hypothetical implying that punishment recommendations are admissible is improper. See Taylor v. State, 74 S.W.3d 457, 463-64 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>). It does not appear that the State intended

A: holding that to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object during trial appellant must show trial court would have committed error in overruling objection
B: holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial
C: holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
D: holding trial court erred in overruling defendants objection on same ground as asserted here to trial courts voir dire hypothetical that was similarly worded to states hypothetical here
D.