With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Witness: I confiscated the syringe and the cooker and also, after we inventoried the vehicle we also found some heroin on the dashboard. (Emphasis ours). Defense: Object to that. He’s not a chemist. Witness: I looked at a black-tarry substance. Defense: Is that overruled, Judge? Court: He is retracting his statement, Mr. DeKoatz. Let him finish answering the question. Witness: I located a black-tarry substance that I believed to be heroin on the dashboard, and also turned that in as evidence. We note that Appellant failed to object to the statement, as revised by Officer Barragan. Since the offensive comment was retracted and no further objection was made to the Officer’s observations, we find that the error, if any, was cured. Butler v. State, 769 S.W.2d 234, 241 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Appellant’s Point of Error No. Three is

A: holding that the foundational prerequisites are unnecessary where the test result is admitted in evidence without objection when evidence of one of the issues in the case is admitted without objection the party against whom it is offered waives any objection to the evidence and it may be properly considered even if the evidence would have been excluded upon a proper objection
B: holding any error in admission of evidence cured when same evidence later admitted without objection
C: holding it is well settled that an error in admission of evidence is cured where the same evidence comes in elsewhere without objection defense counsel must object every time allegedly inadmissible evidence is offered
D: holding that any error in the exclusion of evidence is cured by the subsequent admission of the evidence
B.