1. In a criminal trial, both the defendant and the State have the right to select from jurors who believe in the full range of punishment. Rosales v. State, 4 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Johnson v. State, 982 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 2. Prospective jurors must be able, in a sense, to conceive both of a situation in which the minimum penalty would be appropriate and of a situation in which the maximum punishment would be appropriate. Rosales, 4 S.W.3d at 233. 3. Prospective jurors must be able to accept that, for the offense in question, the minimum legal punishment will be appropriate in some circumstances and the maximum legal punishment will be appropriate in some circumstances. Id. 4. The law requires jurors to use the facts of the case to tailor the punishment to the crime as committed by the guilty defendant. See id 5. A prospective juror can not be challenged for cause because he or she will use the facts to determine punishment. So long as he or she can consider the full range of punishment for the offense as defined by law, a prospective juror is not challengeable for cause based on inability to consider the full range of punishment. Id.