context: But appellant, who was present with counsel, did not object when panelists 114, 76, and 38 were disqualified, nor did he object when the fourth panelist interviewed at the bench was deemed qualified for service. Independent of any duty imposed on the court reporter by rule 13.1(a) to record the bench conferences, it was appellant's duty to object to any improper ruling by the trial court regarding the qualifications for jury service.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 47 S.W.3d 678, 678
citation_a.parenthetical: reporter's failure to record bench conferences did not excuse defendant from duty to properly preserve error in rulings on challenges for cause
citation_a.sentence: See Tanguma, 47 S.W.3d at 678 (reporter’s failure to record bench conferences did not excuse defendant from duty to properly preserve error in rulings on challenges for cause); Tex.R.App.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 3 S.W.3d 547, 562
citation_b.parenthetical: failure to object when panelist excused for cause forfeits issue on appeal
citation_b.sentence: P. 33.1; see also Mayo v. State, 4 S.W.3d 9, 12 (Tex.Crim. App.1999) (defendant must timely object or show significant harm from service by disqualified juror); Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 562 (Tex.Crim.App.1999) (failure to object when panelist excused for cause forfeits issue on appeal); Mays v. State, 726 S.W.2d 937, 950 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (failure to object when panelist excused for economic hardship forfeits issue on appeal).