In Ford v. State, 919 S.W.2d 107 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996), when the decedent's mother was called to testify, the appellant stated, "Your Honor, I would ask that my running objection extend to all witnesses, if they testify to the same type of matter." (rd, 919 S.W.2d at 113.) The trial court responded, "All right. I note your objection. I'll grant your running objection on this issue and overrule it." On appeal, the Ford court held that the appellant had preserved his claim for review: "The record reflects that appellant was clearly objecting 'to any and all impact evidence' as 'to all witnesses' testifying to such. The trial court clearly understood such complaint and ruled adversely thereon. We conclude that appellant has preserved his claim for review." (Id. at 113-14.) The Court held that error was preserved by a running objection to one witness's testimony when two other witnesses testified to the same type of evidence without objection. The Court reasoned that the record reflected that appellant was "clearly objecting 'to any and all impact evidence' as 'to all witnesses' testifying." The trial court responded, 'All right, I note your objection. I'll grant your running objection on this issue and overrule it.'" Ford, 919 S.W.2d at 113. On appeal, the Ford court held "the record reflects that appellant was clearly objecting 'to any and all impact evidence' as 'to all witnesses testifying to such. The trial court clearly understood such complaint and ruled adversely thereon. We conclude that appellant has preserved his claim for review.'" Ford, 919 S.W.2d at 113-14.