With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). Here, Appellant did not request a limiting instruction concerning Appellant’s assault of Ms. Kurt until the State had completed its direct examination of Randy. And it was during the State’s direct examination of Randy that he testified that Appellant hit Ms. Kurt twice in the convenience store parking lot. Thus, Randy’s testimony that Appellant twice hit Ms. Kurt had already been admitted as part of the general evidence and was usable for all purposes. See id. Appellant failed to request a limiting instruction at the time the evidence of the assault was first admitted, and therefore failed to preserve this point for appellate review. See id.; see also Prescott v. State, 123 S.W.3d 506, 515-16 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). We overrule Appellant’s third point. VII.

A: holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes
B: recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury
C: holding that a limiting instruction is required where evidence of a prior conviction is admitted over objection
D: holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge
D.