With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (allowing victim impact evidence in capital murder case when jury was required to answer special issue asking about defendant’s “personal moral culpability” and, thus, defendant’s moral blameworthiness and culpability was relevant issue at punishment); Love, 199 S.W.3d at 456-57 (“Victim impact testimony is irrelevant at the guilt-innocence phase of a trial because it does not tend to make more or less probable the existence of any fact of consequence with respect to guilt or innocence.”). To preserve a complaint regarding the erroneous admission of victim-impact evidence for appellate review, the defendant must object on the ground that the evidence constitutes impermissible victim-impact evidence. See Karnes v. State, 127 S.W.3d 184, 195 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>); see also Pena v. State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464

A: holding that employer waived issue on appeal of whether employees testimony was unduly prejudicial by failing to object when testimony was offered at trial
B: holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been
C: holding that objection to testimony at trial on grounds that testimony was irrelevant highly prejudicial and below the threshold requirement of admissibility does not preserve appellate challenge that testimony constitutes inadmissi ble victimimpact testimony
D: holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
C.