With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the trial court did instruct the jury to disregard the prosecutor's question. 17 . Hawkins v. State, 135 S.W.3d 72, 77 (Tex.Crim.App.2004). 18 . Id.; Mosley v. State, 983 S.W.2d 249, 259 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) (op. on reh’g), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1070, 119 S.Ct. 1466, 143 L.Ed.2d 550 (1999). 19 . Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77; see also Simpson v. State, 119 S.W.3d 262, 272 (Tex.Crim.App.2003), cert, denied, 542 U.S. 905, 124 S.Ct. 2837, 159 L.Ed.2d 270 (2004). 20 . Ovalle v. State, 13 S.W.3d 774, 783 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Hamilton v. State, No. 02-04-00435-CR, 2005 WL 3008449, at *2 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Nov. 10, 2005, pet. refd) (mem. op., not designated for publication); Calderon v. State, 847 S.W.2d 377, 380 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1993, pet. refd). 21 . See Calderon, 847 S.W.2d at 380-81 (<HOLDING>). 22 . See Orona v. State, 791 S.W.2d 125,

A: holding improper admission of extrinsic evidence may be cured by adequate limiting instruction
B: holding that instruction to disregard cured error from prosecutors improper comment during voir dire
C: holding that a judges comment on the issues in the case although not technically correct could be cured by instruction
D: holding that the district courts swift response instructing the jury to disregard the improper comment prevented  the improper comment from materially affecting the verdict
B.