With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". P. 38.1(i) (an appellate brief must “contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record.”); Salazar v. State, 38 S.W.3d 141, 147 (Tex.Crim.App.2001) (dismissing appellant’s issues because “his brief presents no authority in support of his argument”). We, therefore, decline to address appellant’s contention that the trial court’s answer invited the jury to speculate about evidence. We overrule appellant’s ground for review. IV. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. 1 . The jury acquitted appellant of capital murder as charged in Count I. 2 . See also Tex Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.27 (after deliberations have begun, jury may communicate with tr im.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). These decisions, like Bartlett v. State,

A: holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary
B: holding that instruction in original charge informing jury that intent or knowl edge may be inferred by acts done or words spoken was comment on weight of evidence because it focused the jurys attention on the type of evidence that may support a finding of criminal intent
C: holding specific intent to harm may be inferred from the circumstances and that finding is a matter for the jury
D: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
B.