We have reviewed numerous Texas Court of Criminal Appeals cases regarding curative instructions and determined that the court has found several nonexhaustive, nonexclusive factors important in assessing whether an instruction to disregard will cure the harm: (1) the weight of other evidence supporting the verdict. Waldo v. State, 746 S.W.2d 750, 754-57 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Hinojosa v. State, 4 S.W.3d 240, 253 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Whitaker v. State, 977 S.W.2d 595, 600 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). (2) the nature and form of the question (e.g., whether the question was stated as a fact designed to elicit specific evidence of a specific extraneous offense or bad act). See Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 566-67; Adanandus v. State, 866 S.W.2d 210, 227 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Swallow, 829 S.W.2d at 227; Hernandez, 805 S.W.2d at 413-14; Legg v. State, 594 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). (3) the State's purpose and persistence in asking the question. See Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 902 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Boyd v. State, 811 S.W.2d 105, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Waldo, 746 S.W.2d at 754-57; Crawford v. State, 603 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Carrillo v. State, 591 S.W.2d 876, 892-93 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Cavender v. State, 547 S.W.2d 601, 603 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). (4) Whether other evidence concerning the same subject has been admitted. See Huffman v. State, 746 S.W.2d 212, 218-19 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Yarbrough v. State, 617 S.W.2d 221, 228 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); see also Ransom v. State, 789 S.W.2d 572, 585 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989). (5) the particular instruction given. Waldo, 746 S.W.2d at 754-57; see also Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 567; Swallow, 829 S.W.2d at 227; Davis v. State, 645 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). (6) the harm to the accused as measured by the severity of the sentence. Waldo, 746 S.W.2d at 754-57; see also Gonzales v. State, 685 S.W.2d 47, 49-50 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).