This Court has repeatedly held that the failure to object to the improper exclusion of veniremen waives that right and such exclusion cannot be considered on appeal. White v. State, 610 S.W.2d 504; Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567; Russell v. State, 598 S.W.2d 238; Esquivel v. State, 595 S.W.2d 516; Burks v. State, 583 S.W.2d 389. Appellant's failure to object to the alleged improper exclusion of the seven veniremen waives the error the amicus curiae seeks to present. In his seventh ground of error, the amicus curiae challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict from the punishment phase.

It is proper to allege alternative means by which a crime was committed conjunctively. Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) (en banc), Dovalina v. State, 564 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). The State must only prove one means by which the crime is committed, and only the means supported by the evidence should be charged. Brandon, 599 S.W.2d at 577; Dovalina, 564 S.W.2d 378. The contentions of appellant are without merit and point of error one is overruled.

Martin v. Estelle, 546 F.2d 177, 179 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 971, 97 S.Ct. 2935, 53 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1977). See also Brandon v. Texas, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Crim.App. 1979). While other jurisdictions have followed the common law practice of jury trials, those such as Ohio now entrust the competency decision to the sound judgment of the judge.

Cooper v. Oklahoma , 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S.Ct. 1373, 134 L.Ed.2d 498 (1996) ; Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 171-72, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975).Owens v. State , 473 S.W.3d 812, 816 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) ; Hawkins v. State , 660 S.W.2d 65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) ; Brandon v. State , 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) ; Ex parte Harris , 592 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).Owens , 473 S.W.3d at 816.

This Court has sometimes disposed of other appellate points of error on original submission before remanding a cause for a retrospective competency determination. E.g., Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567, 574 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) (opinion on original submission); Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Three of the appellant's remaining points of error in this case, however, involve the issue of whether he should have been allowed to represent himself at various points at trial.

C. This Court has sometimes disposed of other appellate points of error on original submission before remanding a cause for a retrospective competency determination. E.g., Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567, 574 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (opinion on original submission); Barber v. State, 737 S.W.2d 824, 829 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Three of the appellant's remaining points of error in this case, however, involve the issue of whether he should have been allowed to represent himself at various points at trial.

Not every mention of the crime itself will be prejudicial; to necessitate reversal evidence of the offense brought to the attention of the competency jury must be of such nature as to deny the accused a fair trial and impartial determination of his competency. Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567, 580 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980), vacated on other grounds, 453 U.S. 902, 101 S.Ct. 3134, 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981); Penry, supra; Calloway, supra; McBride, supra; Parker, supra. With this background we observe that an effort was made by the trial court and the parties not to reveal to the competency jury the nature of the offense, the details or facts of the offense or the punishment.

We believe such a procedure comports with due process. Compare Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980) wherein, upon finding that a retrospective hearing to determine defendant's competency to stand trial was feasible, this Court resolved all grounds of error pertaining to the actual trial on the merits, but abated the cause for such retrospective competency hearing. The judgment in Brandon was subsequently vacated on another point, 453 U.S. 902, 101 S.Ct. 3134, 69 L.Ed.2d 988 (1981).

Otherwise, the issue which the jury is to determine becomes confused, and the jury is exposed to facts which unduly prejudice it against finding the defendant incompetent. Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980). However, not every mention of evidence of the crime itself will be prejudicial.

This comment was harmful to appellant because it implied to the jurors that if they did not find appellant competent to stand trial he would be released from custody after a temporary, ninety day commitment. The implication of the prosecutor's comments are similar to those statements made by the prosecutor in Brandon v. State, 599 S.W.2d 567 (Tex.Cr.App. 1980). There the prosecutor stated that if the jury were to find the defendant incompetent, he would be sent to a state hospital for up to one year and then he could only be civilly committed to a hospital where he could easily escape.