took his wallet.  Appellant also saw his vehicle being destroyed by
Messimer and Davison.  Appellant and the juvenile were then ordered to leave the
parking lot on foot.  Appellant stated that he was angry, felt disrespected, and feared
that the boys would further damage his car.  So, appellant took the gun from the
juvenile and went back to the parking lot to get his car.  Appellant approached
Messimer, and Messimer asked him if he “want[ed] more.”  With Messimer’s fist
balled up and potentially concealing a weapon and the others in the area who might
have had a weapon, appellant shot Messimer because he feared serious injury.  Afraid
that Ciaramitaro might use his car as a weapon or might have a weapon in his car,
appellant approached him and shot himtwo issues.  In the first, he
contends the trial court erred by denying a mistrial after the State, in the
jury=s presence,
questioned the arresting officer regarding appellant=s post-arrest
silence.  In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in
making an incorrect statement regarding the law of juror disqualification to
the venire.  We affirm.
Background
Appellant does not challenge the legal or factual
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, so we only briefly
recount the facts.  On October 25, 2006, appellant began sending Suzi Hanks, a
Houston radio personality, a series of strange and threatening emails.  The
emails included references to guns, Jack the Ripper, and a bronze chariot; they
also contained sexual innuendos.  In the emails, appellant used the names Earl
Thompson, Mystery Knight, Knights Elite, Saucy Jack, Black Jack, and Jack
Porns.  These emails made Hanks Avery afraid,@