With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and contextual differences between legislating, on the one hand, and common law decisionmak-ing, on the other.”). 39 . See Ortiz, 93 S.W.3d at 91. 40 . See Peugh, 133 S.Ct. at 2079. 41 . See Garner, 529 U.S. at 247, 120 S.Ct. 1362. 42 . Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 616. 43 . Id. at 617-18. 44 . Cf. post, op. at 180-81 (Alcala, J., dissenting). 45 .See Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 616-17. 46 . Marin, 851 S.W.2d at 279. See also Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736, 739 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) ("In Marin, we held that the general preservation requirement’s application turns' on the nature of the right allegedly infringed.”). 47 . Proctor, 967 S.W.2d at 843. See also Phillips, 362 S.W.3d at 626 (Keller, P.J., dissenting). 48 . See, e.g., Reyna v. State, 168 S.W.3d 173, 179-80 (Tex.Crim.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). See also Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276,

A: holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing
B: holding that a proffer of evidence to established a witnesss bias and motive to lie did not preserve a confrontation clause argument because a defendant must specifically articulate that the confrontation clause demands admission of proffered evidence to preserve error on this ground
C: holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge
D: holding that a defendant forfeited his confrontation clause claim by failing to properly preserve it at trial
D.