In Stoker v. State, 788 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989), after the conclusion of voir dire, the defendant filed a motion for a continuance and appointment of a psychological expert. 788 S.W.2d at 16. In determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, the court of appeals noted that: (1) the defendant did not make a pretrial request for appointment of such an expert; (2) during pretrial proceedings, the defendant's counsel advised the trial court that he did not want his client examined by a psychologist because he was not going to present psychiatric or psychological testimony; (3) trial counsel did not present any testimony or affidavits in support of his motion at the time of filing; (4) the record was unclear as to whether defense counsel had contacted the psychologists named in the motion to ascertain their availability to testify; (5) defense counsel did not present evidence as to the costs involved in procuring the services of a psychologist. Id. at 17. Most significantly, the court found that not only was the late hour in which appellant filed his motion calculated to be disruptive of the trial, the very nature of his motion compounded the problem. To have granted appellant's motion as it was presented and at the time it was filed would have constituted a real threat to the trial court's control of the trial. The granting of appellant's motion under the circumstances here presented would have allowed appellant to manipulate his asserted rights in such a matter as to obstruct the orderly administration of justice. Id.