In Anderson v. State, 341 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2011), vacated, 366 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012), the Amarillo Court of Appeals1 considered the same issue in which the trial court did not allow defense counsel to compare the burden of proof required in a criminal case with the burden of proof required in a civil case during voir dire. The Amarillo Court initially found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel's request to ask questions during voir dire about the different civil standards of proof while questioning the venire panel in a criminal case. Anderson v. State, 341 S.W.3d at 588. On review, the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for reconsideration in light of Fuller. Anderson v. State, 366 S.W.3d 198, 199(Tex. Crim. App. 2012). On remand, the Amarillo Court found that the denial of appropriate questioning during voir dire constitutes nonconstitutional error that is subject to harm analysis under Tex. R. App. P. 44.2 (b). Anderson v. State, No. 07-10--0139-CR (Tex. App.--Amarillo July 30, 2012, pet. den'd)(mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition for discretionary review. In re Anderson (Tex. Crim. App., Oct. 24, 2012).