Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): instruction was “a powerful indictment of [Smith’s] case and arguments.” She claims that there was no way to cure the effect of this instruction. We disagree. The trial court could have made any error harmless by clarifying its instruction to allow the jury to consider the evidence that Smith claims should not have been excluded. Smith therefore had to object to preserve error on this ground, and she did not do so. Accordingly, we overrule her second issue. Having overruled both of Smith’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. WALKER, J. filed a dissenting opinion. 1 . See Tex.R. Civ. P. 286; Goode v. Ramey, 48 S.W.2d 719, 722 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1932, writ ref'd). 2 . See Pate v. Texline Feed Mills, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 238, 245 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>); see also Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 729 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that by not objecting the appellants had waived any error in the trial courts correction of typographical errors in the charge (B) holding that the plain error review provided for in ocga  17858 is waived where the defendant requested the charge in question and made no objection to the charge at trial (C) holding appellant waived issue on appeal by not objecting to or protesting the motion to strike before trial court (D) holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge (E) holding that we ordinarily review jury instruction challenges for correction of errors at law
Output (English): holding that we ordinarily review jury instruction challenges for correction of errors at law