Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): .1; so, I'm using that value here. So, you have 7.5 divided by .1. The square root of that is 8.66, multiplied by a speed of, say, 45 constant. And now you have to convert that to feet per second, which is 1.467 to change it to feet per second. Now multiply it by the empirical number there, .458 equals 262 feet. So if you were to do it normally at 45, you’d have traveled down the road about 262 feet. 5 . See, e.g., Carpenter v. State, 979 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Tex.Crim.App.1998) ("Exposing a witness’ motivation to testify for or against the accused or the State is a proper and important purpose of cross-examination.”); Koehler v. State, 679 S.W.2d 6, 9 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) ("Thus, 323760, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 7, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>), with Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge (B) holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question (C) 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 (D) holding that a defendant forfeited his confrontation clause claim by failing to properly preserve it at trial (E) holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue
Output (English): holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question