OPINION

OVERSTREET, Judge.

In February 1993, appellant pled guilty and was convicted under Texas Penal Code § 19.03(a)(2) for a robbery murder committed in July 1991. The jury affirmatively answered the two special issues submitted under Article 37.071(b). Appellant was sentenced to death as mandated by Article 37.071(e). Article 37.071(h) provides direct appeal to this court. Appellant raises thirty-seven points of error. We affirm.

In his first point of error appellant alleges that the trial court reversibly erred in failing to comply with Article 26.13. Appellant argues under Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), the trial court reversibly erred in failing to admonish him in accordance with Article 26.13(a)(2-4). The State counters that the trial court substantially complied with Article 26.13(a) and alternatively, that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the record, immediately prior to the commencement of trial, appellant pled guilty to the offense of capital murder (S.F.XVI, 8-9). Neither party disputes that appellant was admonished about the range of punishment in accordance with Article 26.13(a)(1) or that the trial court failed to admonish appellant according to the requirements of Article 26.13(a)(2 — 4). Except for the failure of the trial court to admonish appellant in accordance with Article 26.13(a)(2 — 4), there is no allegation that appellant's guilty plea was anything less than knowing and voluntary.

The State argues that because the admonishments required were "immaterial" in appellant's case, the instructions given substantially complied under Article 26.13(c) with the requirements of Article 26.13(a)(2-4). This understanding of substantial compliance was disavowed in Morales, 872 S.W.2d at 755. c.f. Whitten v. State, 587 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)(here an admonishment was not given but the admonishment was immaterial to the plea, such as where the trial court failed to admonish on the non-binding character of prosecutorial recommendations and no prosecutorial recommendation had been made, there is substantial compliance). Quoting Hughes v. State, 833 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), we held in Morales that substantial compliance "will not be found where the trial court wholly fails to admonish the defendant." Id. This holding is in harmony with both the plain meaning of substantial compliance and with the internal structure of Article 26.13(c). By contrast, the State's definition of substantial compliance contradicts both the plain meaning and structure of Article 26.13(c); it is a legal fiction concocted "to avoid the plain effect of laws enacted by our Legislature." Morales 872 S.W.2d at 756 (Concurring Opinion). In wholly failing to instruct appellant under Article 26.13(a)(2 — 4), the trial court erred; it was not in substantial compliance as contemplated in Article 26.13(c). Id.

Appellant argues that Morales held that the failure to admonish a defendant under Article 26.13(a) is reversible error not subject to a harm analysis. Id. In Morales we held:

The trial judge wholly failed to admonish appellant as required under Article 26.13(a)(4). Therefore a prima facie case [of substantial compliance] was not made and there is no requirement that appellant show harm. See McAtee, supra, and Hughes, supra.

872 S.W.2d at 755.

Article 26.13(c) states "substantial compliance by the court is sufficient unless the defendant affirmatively shows that he was not aware of the consequences of his plea and that he was misled or harmed by the admonishment of the court." The above cited language in Morales clearly stands for the narrow proposition that when there is no substantial compliance under Article 26.13(c), the court's failure to comply with Article 26.13(a) is not subject to the harm analysis contained in Article 26.13(c). This language does not preclude application of an 81(b)(2) harm analysis to the error under review. See also Ex Parte Ruben Tovar, 901 S.W.2d 484 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) and Ex Parte Mujahid Rashad Akhtab, 901 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995) (Applying a harm analysis to the failure of the trial court to comply with Article 26.13 in habeas cases).

We also disavow any interpretation of Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275, 280 -282 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), which suggests that a Rule 81(b)(2) harm analysis is inappropriate when an absolute legislative mandate like Article 26.13(a) is violated. Marin can be understood, as appellant argues, to hold that a harm analysis under Rule 81(b)(2) is not appropriate when absolute requirements like those of Article 26.13(a) are violated. The reasoning is that certain types of error by their nature resist meaningful harm analysis and thus are categorically precluded from a harm analysis review. Quoting Sodipo v. State, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), Marin stated

[O]ur precedents stand for the proposition that certain kinds of error are such "that it is extremely difficult to know whether they might have affected the outcome, or the likelihood that they have influenced the outcome is so strong that it is not worth expending the judicial resources necessary to evaluate the effect of the error in particular cases." Sodipo, 815 S.W.2d at 551.

851 S.W.2d at 281. See also Warmowski v. State, 853 S.W.2d 575, 578 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). In so far as Marin suggests that, regardless of the facts of a particular case, the application of a Rule 81(b)(2) harm analysis is a waste of judicial resources in whole categories of errors, such as those presently before us, it is exposed by appellant's case as plainly wrong. A meaningful harmless error analysis is possible even though, according to appellant's broad interpretation of Marin, it should not be.

That the nature of some legislative mandates and fundamental rights will resist creation of a record from which to meaningfully assess the effects of their violation, does not justify precluding attempts by the State to establish that under the facts of a particular case, the error was in fact harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

[T]he discrimination required [to conduct a harm analysis] is one of judgment transcending confinement by formula or precise rule. That faculty cannot ever be wholly imprisoned in words, much less upon such a criterion as what are only technical, what substantial rights; . . . What may be technical for one is substantial for another; what minor and unimportant in one setting crucial in another.

In the present case, the trial court erred in failing to admonish appellant according to the dictates of Article 26.13(a)(2) and (3), but because these admonishments are wholly inapplicable to a capital murder case in which the death sentence is sought, this error had absolutely no effect on appellant's conviction or punishment. We can thus conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure to admonish appellant under 26.13(a)(2) and (3) was harmless.

We reach the same conclusion regarding the court's failure to admonish appellant regarding deportation under Article 26.13(a)(4). The record shows that appellant was born on November 19, 1962 in Houston, Texas; therefore, evidencing that appellant is an undeportable citizen of the United States; therefore, the deportation provision was immaterial to appellant's guilty plea. The court's failure to provide appellant with the immaterial admonishment mandated under Article 26.13(a)(4) could not have effected or contributed to his conviction or punishment.

In Morales v. State, 872 S.W.2d 753 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), we held that failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment was reversible error, even without a showing of harm. The record in Morales was completely silent as to appellant's citizenship, however, it is possible to distinguish Morales from the present case where there is no question that appellant is a United States citizen. It is suggested, in Judge Meyers' concurring opinion in Morales, that in writing article 26.13(a)(4), the Legislature did not intend to require defendants pleading guilty or nolo contendere to litigate the issue of their citizenship at trial so that trial judges could determine whether the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment had to be given. Therefore, the Legislature mandated that all such defendants receive the admonishment. Morales, at 755. This interpretation of legislative intent is logical, and the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment must be given in every case.

In Boykin, we held that when we interpret a statute, we seek to effectuate the intent of the Legislature which enacted the legislation. "When attempting to discern this collective legislative intent or purpose, we necessarily focus our attention on the literal text of the statute in question and attempt to discern the fair, objective meaning of that text at the time of its enactment." Boykin, at 785.

There is, of course, a legitimate exception to this plain meaning rule: where application of a statute's plain language would lead to absurd consequences that the Legislature could not possibly have intended we should not apply the language literally. [Citation omitted.] When used in the proper manner, this narrow exception to the plain meaning rule does not intrude on the lawmaking powers of the legislative branch, but rather demonstrates respect for that branch, which we assume would not act in an absurd way.

Boykin, at 785. [Emphasis in original.]

The Legislature in writing article 26.13(a)(4), expressed its intent that a defendant, before entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, be admonished as to the possible immigration consequences of such a plea (consequences, we add, that are applicable only if the defendant is not a U.S. citizen). Our decision in Morales correctly gave due deference to the Legislature's intent by holding it is reversible error to fail to give the admonishment where the record is silent as to defendant's citizenship status.

It would be an absurd result — a result the Legislature could not possibly have intended — to allow a defendant's conviction on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to be reversed on appeal for failure to give the article 26.13(a)(4) admonishment where the record conclusively shows, as it does in this case, that the defendant is a U.S. citizen and thus the admonishment is legally inapplicable to him. We conclude under the facts of this case that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's first point of error is overruled.

In his second point, appellant alleges that the trial court erred in taking his guilty plea outside the presence of the jury. Appellant argues that his plea was to the court and not to the jury and as such violated that mandate of Article 27.13 that a guilty plea be made "in open court by the defendant in person." Appellant argues that his failure to plead guilty before the jury violated both explicit and implicit statutory proscriptions against the waiver of a jury trial in capital murder trials in which the death sentence is sought. Arts. 1.13, 1.14, and 37.071.

According to the record, prior to calling in the jury, the trial court arraigned appellant in open court. The trial court asked the State to read the indictment aloud, then asked for appellant's plea, and appellant pled guilty. The jury was then brought in and sworn. The State then read the indictment to the jury, and the trial court informed the jury, without objection, that appellant had knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the charges against him. After the State presented its evidence and rested, the trial court instructed the jury to return a verdict finding appellant guilty.

Appellant's plea of guilty in open court and on the record, albeit not to the jury, was sufficient to satisfy Article 27.13. In Tutor v. State, 599 S.W.2d 818 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980), Tutor pled guilty during an arraignment and when the jury was later empaneled and sworn in, the indictment was read to them and the trial court informed them, without objection from the defense, that Tutor had pled guilty. Tutor asserted on appeal, as appellant does today, that his trial was "rendered null" because he had not personally entered a plea before the jury as required by Article 27.13. We held that the facts presented no violation of Article 27.13. Id. Similarly, in Shields v. State, 608 S.W.2d 924, 925-27 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) we held that both the spirit and letter of Article 27.13 were satisfied when in a bench trial, Shield's attorney pled guilty for him, but the trial court obtained Shield's personal assurance on the record that the plea was voluntary. In the case at bar, the court's procedure was an unnecessary variation from what is preferable, but appellant's personal plea in open court and on the record was nevertheless sufficient to satisfy Article 27.13 which seeks merely to establish that the accused voluntarily desires to plead guilty.

Moreover, nothing in procedure in this case violates the proscriptions against the waiver of a jury trial in a capital murder trial where death is sought. Art. 1.13. Appellant acknowledges that a guilty plea does not violate the prohibitions against waiver of a trial by jury when the death sentence is sought, but he argues that the plea must be made to the jury. While our language has emphasized that a plea of guilty before a jury is not a waiver of a jury trial, we have placed no importance on whether the jury was present or absent when the defendant entered his plea of guilty. Holland v. State, 761 S.W.2d 307, 313 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1091, 109 S.Ct. 1560, 103 L.Ed.2d 863 (1989). Williams v. State, 674 S.W.2d 315, 319 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The important factor in determining whether appellant has had a jury trial in a capital murder case is that the jury returned a verdict regarding the special issues under Article 37.071. "The Texas capital murder sentencing scheme requires that a jury determine punishment, regardless of the plea." Holland, 761 S.W.2d at 313; Williams, 674 S.W.2d at 319. In appellant's case the jury entered a verdict as to his guilt and answered the special issues under Article 37.071; appellant received a jury trial. Appellant's second point of error is overruled.

Appellant avers in point three that the trial court erred in denying his motion for additional time to investigate evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense. Appellant asserts he was unfairly surprised by testimony of the extraneous offense. Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 233 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1215, 114 S.Ct. 1338, 127 L.Ed.2d 686 (1994). According to the record, Marin, an employee of the Harris County jail testified that on November 7, 1991, while appellant was incarcerated awaiting trial, he awoke appellant, who was sleeping in violation of the rules, and that appellant became assaultive and verbally abusive. In pretrial discovery, the State informed appellant it would call Marin to testify about the incident and provided him with a copy of Marin's written disciplinary report regarding the incident. Appellant does not allege that the report was intentionally misleading; Appellant complains that Marin's trial testimony was misleading because it was much more detailed and incriminating than the written incident report and that he was unprepared to effectively cross-examine Marin. These facts do not establish unfair surprise. To the contrary, the State provided appellant not only with full notice of its intent to introduce evidence of the extraneous offense but also with the witness's written account of the incident. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion. Appellant's third point of error is overruled.

Appellant's fourth point alleges that the trial court erred in admitting victim impact evidence during the guilt/innocence phase of his trial. Appellant complains that during the guilt/innocence phase of trial the State called the victim's widow to the stand. Over objection, she testified that she had been married to the victim for twenty-five years, that they had five children, and that the victim was home alone on the night of his murder. She also identified her husband in a photograph of him with friends. She was not cross examined. We agree with the State that this testimony did not constitute victim impact evidence. See Lane v. State, 822 S.W.2d 35, 41 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 920, 112 S.Ct. 1968, 118 L.Ed.2d 568 (1992)(no victim impact testimony where no evidence given regarding the physical, psychological, or physical effect of the crime on victims, or their families.)

Appellant also asserts that the victim's widow's testimony is character evidence indistinguishable from that which we held impermissible in Armstrong v. State, 718 S.W.2d 686, 695 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985). We disagree. In Armstrong the victim's widow testified that the deceased was a peaceable man. We held that it was error for the State to introduce the issue of the victim's character, stating, "It is never competent for the State in the first instance to prove that the person slain was peaceable and inoffensive." Id. In this case the widow's testimony cannot be described as character evidence within the meaning of Armstrong.

The trial court did not err in overruling appellant's objections. Appellant's fourth point of error is overruled.

Appellant contends in point five that the trial court erred in excluding appellant's Exhibit 9. According to the record, appellant attempted to introduce into evidence the written report of a clinical psychologist testifying on his behalf. The State objected, and the court sustained the objection as to pages 3 through 7 of the report but admitted the remainder of the report into evidence as Exhibit 9-A. Under these facts, error, if any, has not been preserved for review. Tex.R.App. Proc. Rule 52(a). Without an objection to the redacted report, we must assume that it was not objectionable to appellant. Appellant's fifth point of error is overruled.

In his sixth point of error, appellant alleges that the trial court violated the separation of powers clause of the Texas Constitution, Article II, § 1. This contention arises from four instructions contained in the punishment charge. Without challenging the substance of the instructions given, appellant argues that the giving of the extra-statutory instructions amounted to judicial amendment of Article 37.071. Appellant argues that this usurpation of the legislative law-making power violated separation of powers principles.

Separation of powers principles are violated when one government department assumes a power that is more "properly attached" to another branch or when one branch unduly interferes with another branch so that the other branch cannot effectively exercise its constitutionally assigned powers. Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State, 802 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). Appellant presents neither of these situations. The legislature is vested with the lawmaking power of the people in that it alone "may define crimes and prescribe penalties." State ex rel. Smith v. Blackwell, 500 S.W.2d 97, 104 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973). Thus, it is within the legislature's exclusive power to define the elements of capital murder and establish guidelines for deciding when the sentence of death is an appropriate penalty. See Ex parte Granviel, 561 S.W.2d 503, 515 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). But, the every day administration of justice, that is, the daily application of the law to particular facts, is at once the duty and an inherent power of the judicial department:

Judicial power is often said to be the power to adjudicate upon, and protect the

rights and interests of individual citizens and to that end to construe and apply the laws; or as stated in Morrow v. Corbin, 122 Tex. 553, 62 S.W.2d 641 (1933), it is the power of the courts to decide and pronounce judgments and to carry them into effect between persons and parties who bring cases before them for decisions. Under the judicial power determination is made of what the law is in relation to some existing things already done or happened.

Interpretive Commentary, (Vernon's Constitution of the State of Texas Ann. Art. V. 1993)(emphasis added). The duty to discern what law is applicable under the facts, and the power to instruct a jury accordingly is crucial to the daily administration of justice and to the integrity of the judicial branch of government. It is the duty of the trial court, through various rules of construction and application, to ascertain how the entire body of law works under the particular facts of each case. Thus, Article 37.071 must not be read in isolation as appellant suggests, but in conjunction with all other applicable law whether it be common law, statutory law, or state or federal constitutional law. See e.g. State v. McPherson, 851 S.W.2d 846, 850 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 939, 113 S.Ct. 2414, 124 L.Ed.2d 637 (1993)(addressing powers of court to interpret Article 37.071 in relation to United States Constitutional requirement, requirements of the common law, and Article 37.07). See also Tex. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1.; Tex.Code.Crim. Proc. Articles 1.26 and 1.27, Sec. 1.05, Tex. Penal Code; §§ 311.021 and 311.023, Code Construction Act, Chapter 311, Government Code. The legislature explicitly recognizes the importance of this duty in Article 36.14, which states ". . . the judge shall, before the argument begins, deliver to the jury, . . . a written charge distinctly setting forth the law applicable to the case." See also Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, chapter D.

But, while a trial court does not violate separation of powers principles merely by giving extra-statutory instructions, it may do so if the instructions in fact infringe upon the legislative power to define offenses or are in direct conflict with legitimate legislative mandate. The trial court's instructions in the instant case neither changed the definition of a capital murder punishable by death nor violated, in word or spirit, any procedure mandated by Article 37.071. It cannot be said that the instructions given amounted to amendment of Article 37.071.

We cannot hold that the trial court violated separation of powers principle. The court did nothing more than its constitutional duty, assuring that appellant was sentenced to death in accordance with the law — the common law, statutory law, and the state and federal constitutional law. Appellant's sixth point of error is overruled.

In point of error seven, appellant argues that our capital punishment scheme is violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to United States Constitution. Appellant argues that Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), in which the United States Supreme Court held that our capital punishment scheme was not violative of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, is no longer controlling because the legislative amendments to Article 37.071 along with the de facto amendments created by extra-statutory instructions added by trial courts, have created a patch-work quilt under which capital murder defendants, even those similarly situated are treated arbitrarily and erratically subjected to the death penalty. See Branch v. Texas, decided with Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972).

Regarding appellant's Eighth Amendment challenges (cruel and unusual punishment), we note that the scheme under which appellant was tried is the same scheme that was reviewed in Jurek, therefore, Jurek is directly controlling. Appellant lacks standing to challenge the subsequent amendments made to Article 37.071 which were not applicable to his case. Moreover, the disparate treatment created in our capital punishment scheme by the amendments to Article 37.071 is of a different nature than that which was found unconstitutional in Furman. Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967, 114 S.Ct. 2630, 129 L.Ed.2d 750 (1994). Appellant presents no Eighth Amendment violation.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that "all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike" under the law. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). At the time of appellant's trial, there were two versions of Article 37.071 — one applicable to offenses committed prior to September 1, 1991, and the amended version, applicable to offenses committed on or after September 1, 1991. Because those committing the same offense on the same day are subject to the same statutory scheme, they are similarly situated and are similarly treated. See Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 302, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 2302-03, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977). Appellant presents no equal protection violation. His seventh point of error is overruled.

In point of error eight, appellant raises the same arguments which he raised in point seven under Article I, Section 13 of the Texas Constitution, prohibiting cruel or unusual punishment, and Article I, Section 3, guaranteeing equal protection of law. In addition to the arguments made under the federal constitution, appellant argues that the protections of the Texas Constitution are broader. Appellant proffers no argument or authority as to the protection offered by the Texas Constitution or how that protection differs from that guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Without such argument or authority appellant's point is inadequately briefed. Narvaiz v. State, 840 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 975, 113 S.Ct. 1422, 122 L.Ed.2d 791 (1993); Robinson v. State, 851 S.W.2d 216, 222 n. 4 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1246, 114 S.Ct. 2765, 129 L.Ed.2d 879 (1994); Morehead v. State, 807 S.W.2d 577, 579 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991); Tex.R.App. Proc. 74 and 210. Appellant's eighth point of error is overruled.

In points of error nine, ten, eleven, and twelve appellant complains that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with the provocation special issue under Article 37.071(b)(3). Appellant alleges this violated the mandate of Article 37.071, and violated the cruel and unusual punishment, due process, and ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution. Article 37.071(b)(3) states

(3) if raised by the evidence, whether the conduct of the defendant in killing the deceased was unreasonable in response to the provocation, if any, by the deceased.

The instruction is clearly conditional rather than mandatory. Moreover, since appellant specifically informed the trial court that he did not desire submission of the provocation issue, he is estopped by the doctrine of invited error from raising this complaint on appeal. Tucker v. State, 771 S.W.2d 523, 534 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3230, 106 L.Ed.2d 578 (1989). Points nine, ten, eleven and twelve are overruled.

In points of error thirteen and fourteen appellant avers that the amendment adding the mitigation special issue to Article 37.071 violated the federal constitution, and in points fifteen and sixteen, appellant raises identical claims under the state constitution. Appellant asserts that the failure to assign the burden of proof regarding mitigation to the state, unconstitutionally shifted the burden of proof to him.

Appellant was not tried under the version of Article 37.071 which he challenges; therefore, he lacks standing to make these challenges. However, since the mitigation special issue submitted to the jury, in fact mimics the one in the legislative amendment and does not assign a burden of proof, we will apply appellant's arguments to the extra-statutory mitigation special issue given in his case.

We have held that a mitigating instruction need not assign a burden of proof. Barnes v. State, 876 S.W.2d 316, 330 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). Citing the United States Supreme Court's discussion of the issue, we have rejected the argument that an undefined and unassigned burden of proof creates constitutional infirmity:

In a plurality opinion, the United States Supreme Court in Walton v. Arizona affirmatively declined to "adopt as a constitutional imperative a rule that would require the court to consider the mitigating circumstances claimed by a defendant unless the State negated them by a preponderance of the evidence." 497 U.S. 639, at 650, 110 S.Ct. 3047, at 3055, 111 L.Ed.2d 511, at 526 (1990) (plurality opinion). The plurality in Walton further held that it is not unconstitutional to place a burden on the defendant to establish sufficient mitigating circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. [497] U.S. at 649-651, [110] S.Ct. at 3055-56, [111] L.Ed.2d at 525-27. Because neither legislation nor constitution places a burden of proof upon the State to negate the existence of mitigating evidence, we refuse to fault the trial court for failing to give the jury such an instruction.

Id. Appellant presents nothing which would remove his case from this controlling precedent. Furthermore, nothing in the Texas Constitution requires a different result. Appellant's thirteenth through sixteenth points of error are overruled.

Points of error seventeen, eighteen, and nineteen voice appellant's contentions, respectively, that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's answer to the second (dangerousness) and third (mitigation) special issues and that we are unable to meaningfully review the evidence because it cannot be determined upon what evidence the jury based its answers to the special issues. Appellant's arguments betray some misunderstandings regarding sufficiency reviews.

Texas has followed the common law in assigning the factfinding function exclusively to juries. Tex. Const. Art. I, § 15 interp. Commentary (Vernon's 1984). We had repeatedly held that the "jurors are the exclusive judges of the facts". Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994). That conflicting evidence was introduced does not render evidence insufficient; indeed, the reviewing court must assume that the factfinder resolved conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict reached. Turro v. State, 867 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). A reviewing court is not required to determine whether it believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Although faced with conflicting inferences, a reviewing court must presume that the trier of fact resolved any such conflict in favor of the prosecution, and must defer to that resolution. Id. Thus, a reviewing court does not sit as a thirteenth juror reweighing the credibility or weight of evidence, but asks only whether the evidence exists to support the jury's finding. E.g. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560; Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9, 15 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert denied, 511 U.S. 1100, 114 S.Ct. 1871, 128 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994). This is what it means when courts assert that evidence is reviewed "in the light most favorable to the verdict." Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. at 2789; Chambers, 866 S.W.2d at 15.

Thus, when appellant argues that we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence because we cannot ascertain upon what evidence the jury reached its verdict, he presents no grounds for reversal. It is unnecessary to determine upon what specific evidence the jury based its decisions; we look only for sufficient evidence to support the finding. Appellant's nineteenth point is overruled.

Similarly, appellant's eighteenth point urges us to perform the unnecessary and impossible task of reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's determination the no evidence exists which mitigates against the imposition of the death penalty in his case. The United States Supreme Court has held that such a review is not required under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Pulley v. Harris, 465 U.S. 37, 104 S.Ct. 871, 79 L.Ed.2d 29 (1984); Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285, 294 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1967, 131 L.Ed.2d 857 (1995). Moreover, to conduct such a review, we would first have to determine that certain evidence is as a matter of law mitigating, and we would have to presume that the evidence presented was credible, that is, that the jury believed it, and we would have to hold that appellant's "credible mitigating evidence" outweighed the State's evidence against mitigation. We are disinclined to declare any evidence mitigating as a matter of law, or to usurp the jury's role of discerning the credibility and weight of evidence; such a course would violate the long standing principle governing the factfinder and reviewing court's respective functions. We reiterate our prior holdings that a review of the jury's answer to the mitigation issue is inappropriate. Colella v. State, 915 S.W.2d 834, 841 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995); Hughes, 897 S.W.2d at 294. Appellant's eighteenth point is overruled.

Turning to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's finding that appellant represents a continuing threat to society, we find the evidence sufficient. In resolving appellant's contention we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find all of the elements of article 37.071(b)(2) beyond a reasonable doubt. Flores v. State, 871 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 926, 115 S.Ct. 313, 130 L.Ed.2d 276 (1994). The jury is entitled to consider all the evidence admitted at both phases of trial when deliberating on the special issues. Id. We have previously stated that the circumstances of the offense, if severe enough, may alone be sufficient to support an affirmative answer to the second special issue. Id. We may also look for other evidence to support the jury's finding, such as character evidence, extraneous offenses, or state of mind at the time of the offense. Id.

The evidence here established "a most dangerous aberration of character." Tucker, 771 S.W.2d at 527. To support his cocaine habit, appellant was willing to brutally kill relatives, friends, and neighbors. Evidence at trial established that in the course of robbing Anderson, a distant relative for whose murder appellant was tried here, appellant brutally bludgeoned and stabbed him to death. During the punishment phase of appellant's trial, the State also introduced appellant's confessions to the equally brutal murder of Melonee Josey, a friend and neighbor. Appellant bludgeoned her to death with a meat tenderizer when she refused to give him money but offered to pay him if he mowed her lawn. The State also introduced appellant's confession of his assault with a hammer upon Ola Mac Williams, a person of advanced years, who refused to pay appellant for lawn work he had not performed. Appellant committed these crimes in the course of a few days and in each case he entered the victim's home as an invited guest. These facts reveal a volatility and brutality evincing a dangerous aberration of character from which a reasonable juror could conclude that appellant possesses a continuing threat to society. Appellant's seventeenth point of error are overruled.

In point of error twenty, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury with special-verdict forms listing the elements of the unadjudicated offenses alleged by the State. Appellant acknowledges that normally there is no such requirement, Spence v. State, 795 S.W.2d 743, 758-59 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 932, 111 S.Ct. 1339, 113 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), but argues that the special verdict forms became necessary because the trial court instructed the jury not to consider the extraneous offenses unless they believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that appellant had committed the offense. We disagree. The trial court's instruction does not necessitate a special verdict form and does not distinguish this case from Spence. Point of error twenty is overruled.

In point twenty-one appellant contends that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could "convict" appellant of unadjudicated extraneous offenses. Appellant fails to cite said instruction and we find nothing in the jury charge which amounts to an instruction to convict appellant of extraneous offenses. The instruction to consider the extraneous offenses only if the juror believes appellant committed the offense does not amount to an instruction to convict appellant. Appellant's contention is factually unfounded; it is based on an overwrought interpretation of the record. Point of error twenty-one is overruled.

In points twenty-two and twenty-three, appellant urges us to overrule well-settled precedent and hold that unadjudicated extraneous offenses are inadmissible during the punishment phase of capital murder trials. In point twenty-four, appellant contends that the court's failure to follow the dictates of Article 37.07 § 3(c) violated the separation of powers provision of the Texas Constitution; he asserts that Article 37.07 § 3(c) forbids admission of unadjudicated extraneous offenses. As appellant acknowledges, this is directly contrary to precedent holding that Article 37.071, and not Article 37.07, controls the punishment phase of a capital murder trial. Gentry v. State, 770 S.W.2d 780, 792 (Tex.Crim.App. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1102, 109 S.Ct. 2458, 104 L.Ed.2d 1013 (1989); Rumbaugh v. State, 589 S.W.2d 414, 418 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979). Finding no novel or compelling argument, we reaffirm our precedent holding that Article 37.071 governs the punishment phase of capital murder trials, and it permits evidence of unadjudicated extraneous offenses. Points of error twenty-two, twenty-three, and twenty-four are overruled.

In point of error twenty-five appellant complains of the trial court's instructions regarding voluntary intoxication under Sec. 8.04 of the Texas Penal Code. The record reflects that the instruction was given at appellant's request, and appellant failed to object to the instructions given. Because there was no objection, we must assume that the instruction was satisfactory to appellant. Under the doctrine of invited error, appellant is estopped from complaining on grounds that the court gave an instruction which he requested. Tucker, 771 S.W.2d at 534. Point twenty-five is overruled.

In points of error twenty-six and twenty-seven, appellant alleges that the death sentence is a cruel and unusual punishment violative of both the federal and state constitutions. Appellant "adopts the cogent arguments of Justice Harry Blackmum" in Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141, 114 S.Ct. 1127, 127 L.Ed.2d 435 (1994). Regarding appellant's federal claims, we hold that Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 276, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 2958, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976) is controlling; it upholds the constitutionality of our capital scheme. Moreover, Justice Blackmun's dissenting opinion in Callins does not sufficiently address the provisions of the Texas Constitution to adequately brief appellant's arguments that our constitution provides broader protections than the federal constitution; distinct arguments and authorities are required to raise such challenges. Narvaiz, 840 S.W.2d 415; Robinson, 851 S.W.2d at 222 n. 4; Morehead, 807 S.W.2d at 579 n. 1; Tex.R.App. Proc. 74 and 210. Appellant's twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh points of error are overruled.

In point of error twenty-eight appellant maintains that the use of the term "probability" in the second special issue unconstitutionally allows the jury to answer that issue on evidence less than beyond a reasonable doubt. This contention was rejected in Sosa v. State, 769 S.W.2d 909, 916-17 (Tex.Crim.App. 1989). We held in Sosa that this argument ignores the language of Article 37.071(c), which requires the jury to answer each of the special issues "beyond a reasonable doubt". Appellant's point twenty-eight is overruled.

In his twenty-ninth point of error, appellant claims that Article 37.071(b)(1) is facially invalid because deliberate is a lesser culpable mental state then intentional. We have repeatedly held, and the jury was instructed in this case, that deliberate is something more than intentional. See e.g., Farris v. State, 819 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 911, 112 S.Ct. 1278, 117 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992); Fearance v. State, 620 S.W.2d 577, 584 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 899, 102 S.Ct. 400, 70 L.Ed.2d 215 (1981); Heckert v. State, 612 S.W.2d 549, 552 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). Point twenty-nine is overruled.

In his thirtieth point of error appellant asserts that the operative terms of Article 37.071 are vague and lead to the unconstitutionally arbitrary application of the death sentence. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). In point of error thirty-two appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to set aside the indictment on grounds that the special issues are vague and cannot be understood by jurors. Appellant's arguments amount to an attack on the constitutionality of Article 37.071 on grounds that its terms are too vague and confusing for the average citizen to understand. He ignores Jurek, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976), in which the Supreme Court rejected these arguments against the same version of Article 37.071 applied in his case. Id. Appellant's thirtieth and thirty-second points of error are overruled.

In his thirty-first point of error appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to appoint an expert to study the jury's ability to understand the special issues. Appellant argues under Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985).

In Ake the Supreme Court explained that while the State need not "purchase for an indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterparts," it must provide him the basic tools to present his defense. Id. at 77, 105 S.Ct. at 1093. Among the factors which the Ake court set forth as relevant to determining when an appointed expert is necessary to provide an indigent defendant with the raw materials integral to the building of an effective defense was the probable value of the expert assistance sought, and the risk of an error if expert assistance were not provided. 470 U.S. at 74, 82-83, 86, 105 S.Ct. at 1091-92, 1095-96, 1097-98. The Supreme Court placed the burden on the defendant to show a compelling need. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 323-24 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 2637 n. 1, 86 L.Ed.2d 231, (1985). Appellant must offer more than undeveloped assertions that the requested assistance would be beneficial. Id.

Reviewing the record, we conclude that appellant failed to establish the threshold showing of need required to invoke the due process concerns reviewed in Ake. See also, Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex.Cr.App. 1995). Appellant failed to establish that the ability of the jury to understand the special issues would be an issue which could not be adequately addressed by his counsel during his trial. Indeed, we reject appellant's bald assertion that scientific expertise is required to determine a juror's or the jury's ability to understand and apply the law. Every lawyer able to ask questions has the expertise required to determine whether a juror understands the law. Appellant's thirty-first point of error is overruled.

In point of error thirty-three appellant alleges that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for new trial on grounds that the jury improperly considered the operation of parole in their deliberations. Through a complex, backward analysis appellant insists that the jury considered parole in its deliberations; he asserts that since society as employed in the second special issue includes both "prison society" and "free society", the jury must have considered the threat to "free society" posed by appellant. Appellant asserts that to assess appellant's threat to "free society," the jurors had to consider appellant's inevitable release into society. Appellant then asserts that to consider his release into free society, the jury had to assume that he would be paroled. Appellant's argument is flawed in its logic and, more importantly, refuted by the evidence.

All of the jurors questioned at the hearing on the motion for a new trial, testified that they had not considered parole in their personal deliberations and that the jury had not discussed parole in its deliberation. The jurors were apparently satisfied with considering the threat appellant poses to society, without distinguishing between "free" or "prison" society and without developing a "parole" scenario by which appellant might become a threat to "free society." Put simply, the jurors did not bother to figure out how appellant might become a danger to society; they just concluded that he posed such a danger. With clear evidence contradicting appellant's assertions, we cannot hold the trial court abused its discretion in overruling appellant's motion. Point thirty-three is overruled.

Appellant complains in his thirty-fourth point that the trial court reversibly erred in refusing to allow him to make an offer of proof during the hearing on his motion for new trial. Appellant mischaracterizes the issue. In reality, appellant complains that the trial court limited his questioning of the jurors.

According to the record, appellant requested and was granted a hearing on his motion for new trial. The hearing was intended to specifically address appellant's allegations of jury misconduct. Appellant alleged that the jury had to have considered parole in its deliberation of the second special issues. Appellant proposed the same flawed argument that he raises in point of error thirty-three, supra. In an attempt to establish that the jury had improperly considered parole, appellant questioned Juror Ellwanger regarding whether in determining the threat posed to society by appellant, Ellwanger had considered appellant's eventual release from prison? The juror answered, "No." Over the State's objection, appellant repeated the question and again received a negative answer. Appellant's counsel then asked "Did you consider that he [appellant] could be paroled?" To which the venireman responded, "no." Appellant then asked whether Ellwanger had considered that appellant could be a threat to "free society." Ellwanger responded "no" and added, that he had not distinguished between "free" and "prison" society, stating "I just thought of it as society." Appellant then attempted to convince Ellwanger, through a series of questions, that he must have in answering the second special issue considered that appellant could be paroled. Asserting that appellant had already established that Ellwanger had not considered parole in answering the special issue, the State objected on grounds that this line of questioning was redundant, confusing, improper, and harassment of the witness. The trial court sustained the State's objection, and when appellant asked to pursue his line of questioning in a bill of exception the trial court denied him the right to further question the juror in this vein.

Trial courts may place reasonable limits on cross-examination based on such concerns as harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness's safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Moody v. State, 827 S.W.2d 875, 891 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 839, 113 S.Ct. 119, 121 L.Ed.2d 75 (1992). The trial court did not, under the facts of this case, abuse its discretion. Appellant was allowed to ask various questions critical to his query. When he did not receive the answers which he sought, appellant's questions became repetitious, harassing, and argumentative. The right to enter a bill of exception into the record is not a vehicle by which a party may circumvent a trial court's reasonable limit on harassing questions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in not allowing appellant to continue his improper line of questioning under the guise of a bill of exception.

Prior to the examination of subsequent jurors, appellant made it clear, in large part to ensure that his intent was reflected in the record, that he proposed to question all of the jurors in the same manner as he had questioned juror Ellwanger. The trial court informed appellant that it would not allow him to pursue the same line of questioning he had attempted with Ellwanger. Appellant asserts that this was a denial of his rights. But, appellant passed each of the remaining jurors without attempting to question them; we, therefore, cannot discern from the record whether the trial court erred. Thus, appellant has failed to preserve any error for our review. Tex.R.App. Proc. 52(a). Appellant's thirty-fourth point of error is overruled.

In point of error thirty-five, appellant avers that the trial court erred in dismissing veniremember Bolden. In reviewing a trial court's decision to dismiss a venireperson upon a sustained challenge for cause, considerable deference is given to the trial court. Chambers, 866 S.W.2d at 22. In reviewing the trial judge's decision to sustain a challenge for cause, we ask whether the totality of the voir dire testimony supports the trial judge's finding "that the prospective juror is unable to take the requisite oath and follow the law as given by the trial judge," and only if a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated will the trial judge's decision be reversed. Id.

The record of Bolden's voir dire establishes that she had difficulty accepting death as a legitimate penalty. The record suggests that Bolden required extra-ordinary proof to find a defendant guilty of capital murder. The State originally challenged Bolden on these grounds. But, contrary to appellant's assertions, the trial court did not dismiss Bolden on these grounds. In its attempt to evaluate the State's challenge that Bolden could not fulfill her duty as a juror, the trial court questioned Bolden, asking, "You cannot promise then that even if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was guilty that you would find him guilty?" She responded: "No, I can't." Bolden repeated this assertion when asked again. On this record, we must conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bolden. Cooks v. State, 844 S.W.2d 697, 719 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 927, 113 S.Ct. 3048, 125 L.Ed.2d 732 (1993)(juror who states that they are unable to take the juror's oath because to do so would potentially place them in the position of having to impose the death penalty is subject to a challenge for cause). Appellant's thirty-fifth point of error is overruled.

In point of error thirty-six appellant asserts that the trial court erred in not permitting appellant to question the venire regarding the State's burden of proof regarding mitigating evidence. According to the record, appellant requested that the trial court instruct the venire that the State has the burden of proof on the issue of mitigation; naturally the trial court denied this request. Appellant then propounded a series of questions asking if the jurors could hold the State to its burden to negate the existence of mitigating evidence. Appellant objected when the trial court did not permit him to ask these questions.

We have already held that there is no burden of proof regarding mitigating evidence. See Point thirteen, supra. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request that it improperly instruct the jury or in prohibiting appellant from misinforming the jurors about the burdens of proof. Appellant's thirty-sixth point of error is overruled.

In his thirty-seventh and final point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to remind the jury in its punishment instructions that appellant had pled guilty. Appellant argues that he was entitled to this instruction because acceptance of responsibility is mitigating evidence. Appellant presents no convincing argument or authority supporting his contentions; he presents no error. The trial court's mitigation instruction provided a sufficient vehicle by which the jury could consider evidence mitigating; the trial court was not required to argue appellant's case for him. Point thirty-seven is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

McCORMICK, P.J., concurs in the result.

MALONEY and MEYERS, JJ., concur in the result as to points 1 and 2, and otherwise join the opinion.