OPINION
W. C. DAVIS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction for the offense of bribery; punishment, which was assessed by the court, is imprisonment for eight years.
Appellant contends that: (1) the statute under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional; (2) the indictment is defective; (3) the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict; (4) certain items which were admitted in evidence were the result of an unlawful search and seizure; (5) certain tape recordings were erroneously admitted in evidence because the proper predicate was not established; (6) the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to examine the original tape recordings; (7) certain acts and statements of a co-party to the offense were erroneously admitted; (8) the court erred in allowing three of the State’s witnesses to testify; (9) evidence proffered by appellant to rebut testimony of the State’s chief witness was erroneously ex-[125]*125eluded; (10) the court erroneously failed to charge the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence, and erroneously refused thirteen other special instructions which were requested by appellant; and (11) the prosecutor engaged in improper argument.
It was established that appellant was elected judge of the 174th Judicial District of this state on November 7, 1972. Appellant took the oath of office on December 28, 1972, and was commissioned on January 5, 1973. He was removed from office on January 11, 1977. See In re Bates, 555 S.W.2d 420 (Tex.1977).
Nukie “Frenchy” Fontenot was the principal witness for the State. He testified that he was indicted on September 21,1975, in the 174th District Court for the offenses of robbery and concealing stolen goods, both of which arose out of an incident which we shall refer to as the Mize robbery. In the latter part of December, 1975, Fon-tenot was introduced to Ed Riklin, who said “he had been talking to somebody higher up” and indicated that he could help Fon-tenot secure a probated sentence in exchange for $30,000. In subsequent conversations with Fontenot, Riklin stated that he was a “real close friend” of appellant, with whom he had had previous “dealings.” Rik-lin never specifically mentioned to whom the money was to be paid, referring only to the “big man” and somebody “higher up.” Fontenot testified that he understood from his conversations with Riklin that the money was to be paid to appellant. Before paying the money to Riklin, Fontenot wanted assurances that he would receive probation, but Riklin stated that the judge would not meet or talk with Fontenot, and that Fontenot would just have to trust Riklin.
In March, 1976, Fontenot was arrested for aggravated assault, an offense not connected to the pending robbery charge. When Fontenot was released from jail on March 4, he had a conversation with Houston police detectives Sam Nuchia and Earl Musick. Later that same evening, Fonten-ot and his attorney met with several law enforcement officers and representatives of the special crimes division of the district attorney’s office. At this meeting, Fonten-ot agreed to work with the police and record any future conversations he might have with anyone concerning his payment of money in exchange for a lighter sentence. During the next few months, from March through July 16, Fontenot recorded numerous conversations with Riklin. In these taped conversations, Riklin never specifically stated that the money was to be paid to appellant in exchange for a probated sentence. However, on numerous occasions Riklin would refer to someone else as “the party,” “my friend and your friend,” and “the big boy,” which Fontenot indicated was the appellant. On two of the tape recordings, appellant’s voice is cognizable, indicating his presence in Riklin’s apartment.
After these conversations, it finally was agreed that Fontenot would give the money for the probation, the price of which had been raised to $60,000, to Riklin on July 16, 1976. It was arranged that Riklin would meet Fontenot at the Northwest National Bank at 9:00 a. m. at which time Fontenot would give Riklin the $60,000. At 8:20 a. m., July 16, Fontenot met Bob Bennett of the district attorney’s office and they placed $59,000 in $100 bills in Fontenot’s safe deposit box at the bank.1 Fontenot met Riklin at 9:00 a. m. and handed the money to him. Appellant was near the bank at the time and was situated so that he could observe the exchange. Immediately after the exchange at the bank, the appellant and Riklin met at the office of James H. Brown, appellant’s accountant. At that meeting, Riklin handed Brown two packets of money amounting to $10,000 and stated, “This is the down payment on the apartment at the Beaconsfield.” Brown testified that the Beaconsfield apartments were a leasehold property the appellant had been interested in purchasing. The $10,000 from Riklin was a down payment on an apartment Riklin intended to buy once ap[126]*126pellant had acquired the property. Brown was instructed by appellant to take the $10,000 and get a cashier’s check to be used as earnest money in the purchase of the property. After appellant and Riklin left, Brown acquired the cashier’s check and delivered it to the escrow holder.
After he left the bank, Fontenot went to the district attorney’s office, where he learned that he had delivered only $59,000 instead of the intended $60,000. Upon learning of this shortage, Fontenot telephoned the appellant and Riklin.
After the exchange at the Northwest National Bank, law enforcement officers lost contact with appellant and Riklin, following which they established surveillance at the appellant’s house and at Riklin’s apartment. Appellant arrived at his home at approximately 10:30 a. m. and was under surveillance until approximately 1:30 p. m., at which time the officers again lost contact with him. Riklin arrived at his apartment at approximately 2:15 p. m., and as he entered his apartment law enforcement officers saw him carrying a shotgun they believed to be of illegal length. The officers tried to obtain a search warrant for the prohibited weapon, but before they could do so Riklin emerged from the apartment with the shotgun at 2:40 p. m. At that time, Riklin was placed under arrest. Riklin subsequently consented to the search of his apartment and $30,000 of the original $59,-000 was recovered. After Riklin’s arrest, appellant arrived at the scene and also was placed under arrest. The officers recovered $2,900 of the original $59,000 from appellant’s coat pocket.
The State introduced other evidence which tended to show the appellant had a close relationship with Riklin. Testimony also was introduced which tended to show the appellant had certain financial difficulties with the purchase of two ranch properties in 1976 and certain banking transactions in 1975. The defense sought to rebut this testimony and introduced evidence to show the appellant was not in any financial difficulty and could amply afford to purchase both the ranch properties and the Beaconsfield apartments.
Appellant testified in his own behalf that while he was a friend of Riklin, Riklin never indicated that Fontenot was paying money on an understanding that he would give Fontenot a probated sentence. Appellant explained that Riklin had approached the appellant and stated that Fontenot was his friend and he wanted to get an attorney appointed to represent Fontenot. Appellant outlined to Riklin the requisites for appointing an attorney to represent an indigent defendant and said he would help Fon-tenot by seeing that an attorney was appointed. Appellant did not know Riklin was receiving money from Fontenot or that Riklin was leading Fontenot to believe that appellant would receive the money in exchange for a probated sentence. Concerning the actual exchange, appellant testified that he was told by Riklin that Riklin was going to receive some money from a friend on an old debt. Riklin asked appellant to accompany him in order to take care of the money and so he could give appellant the down payment on Riklin’s apartment. When Riklin gave the $10,000 to Brown, it never was indicated that the money belonged to appellant, nor was there any discussion concerning Fontenot.
In regard to the money found in his possession, the appellant stated that Rinklin had given him $4,000, which was intended to be $5,000, that Riklin owed appellant for an automobile appellant had sold Riklin and for a small gambling debt. After depositing $1,100 in a bank account, appellant had the $2,900 found by the officers at the time of his arrest.
In rebuttal, the State introduced the testimony of Irwin Howard, who testified that he had been under indictment for theft by false pretense in appellant’s court. After Howard had been contacted by Riklin, he had spoken to appellant and stated, “Mr. Riklin has told me for somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 that this case that’s pending against me in your courtroom can be taken care of,” to which the appellant replied, “Myself and Mr. Riklin are looking into the matter and Mr. Riklin [127]*127will be handling it with you from this point on. Don’t worry about it.”
On defense rebuttal, appellant denied he spoke to Howard, and Howard’s attorney testified that Howard never mentioned talking to appellant. Further, it was established that Howard had been offered probation in a plea bargaining agreement worked out between Howard’s attorney and the State.
Appellant’s second ground of error complains of the trial court’s refusal to rule V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sections 36.02 and 36.08 unconstitutional on account of their alleged violation of federal and state constitutional provisions.
With respect to appellant’s contention regarding Section 36.08, we conclude that appellant has no standing to challenge such statute since he was clearly being prosecuted pursuant to the felony provisions of Section 36.02. See U. S. v. Irwin, 354 F.2d 192 (2nd Cir. 1965).
Appellant contends that Section 36.02 is void for vagueness, indefiniteness, and overbroadness. A statute is void for vagueness if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute, Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 74 S.Ct. 808, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1953), and if it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S.Ct. 736, 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); Herndon v. Lowrey, 301 U.S. 242, 57 S.Ct. 732, 81 L.Ed. 1066 (1937). V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 36.02, provides as follows:
“(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
(1) any pecuniary benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
(2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; or
(3) any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree. Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 915, ch. 342, sec. 11, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.”
This same offense, as set forth in our former penal code, was similarly attacked as being void for vagueness in Mutscher v. State, 514 S.W.2d 905 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).2 [128]*128This Court concluded in Mutscher that the relevant bribery statutes of the then applicable penal code “clearly furnish[ed] adequate warning to anyone of ordinary intelligence that the kind of conduct embarked on by appellants would constitute an offense.” The present penal code section making bribery an offense is an amendment of the 1974 codification of the various provisions previously set forth in Title V, Chapter 1, of our former penal code. It is readily apparent, from a review of the current statute, what conduct is prohibited by the statute and that the statute’s application is appropriately restricted so as not to result in arbitrary and erratic convictions. We therefore hold that V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 36.02 is not unconstitutionally vague or indefinite. See Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1925); McMorris v. State, 516 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
As noted in McMorris, supra, “a clear and precise statute may nevertheless be overbroad if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct.” See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972). It is noted that appellant has not pointed to any constitutionally protected activity that may be restricted by the reach of Section 36.02. Such an omission on appellant’s part is understandable since “[T]he inequity of the procuring of public officials, be it intentional or unintentional, is so fatally destructive to good government that a statute designed to remove the temptation for a public official to give preferment to one member of the public over another, by prohibiting all gifts ‘for or because of an official act,’ is a reasonable and proper means of insuring the integrity, fairness and impartiality of the administration of the law.” U. S. v. Irwin, supra, at 196. Although Irwin dealt with the federal bribery statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 201(f), its reasoning is equally applicable to the conduct sought to be restricted by Section 36.02. We hold that Section 36.02 is not overbroad in violation of any constitutional provisions. See Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972); McMorris v. State, supra.
Appellant further attacks the constitutionality of Section 36.02 on the ground that the caption of said statute fails to comply with the constitutional mandate of Article III, Section 35, of the Texas Constitution. He contends that the caption to the Acts of the 64th Legislature which amended Section 36.02 failed to put the public or legislature on notice of the changes enacted by the amendment in said statute.
Article III, Section 35, Texas Constitution, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“But if any subject shall be embraced in an act, which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof, as shall not be so expressed.”
It is clear that this provision of the Texas Constitution is entitled to liberal construction, Castellano v. State, 458 S.W.2d 73 (Tex.Cr.App.1970), but a stricter standard is enforced when the matter addressed is an amendatory act. White v. State, 440 S.W.2d 660 (Tex.Cr.App.1969). The critical question for determining adequate compliance with Article III, Section 35, of the Texas Constitution is whether the caption “put any reasonable caption reader on no[129]*129tice that he will find new matter in the body of the bill.” Ex parte Jimenez, 159 Tex. 183, 317 S.W.2d 189 (1958). The caption to the act amending Section 36.02, inter alia, reads as follows:
“An Act amending various parts of the Penal Code as follows: . . ; amending Section 36.02 relating to bribery and penalty therefor; . . . .” Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 342, p. 912.
The changes effected in Section 36.02 by the Acts of the 64th Legislature now complained of by appellant reflect that: (1) the actors to which the offense applies and the requisite culpable mental state were consolidated under Subsection (a); (2) the proscribed purposes for which the unlawful activity was engaged in were consolidated in Subsections (1), (2), and (3) of Subsection (a); (3) the proscribed purpose for the unlawful activity was changed from a “specific exercise of official powers” to a more general proscription; and (4) all offenses proscribed by this section were made subject to a uniform, second degree felony penalty.
The caption set forth above cannot be construed as in any way obscuring the purpose of the amendment from legislators or citizens and is, contrary to appellant’s position, sufficient to give the notice required under Article III, Section 35, of the Texas Constitution. Unlike White v. State, supra, there is not a veiled reference to the changes enacted by the amendatory act. Any caption reader would be apprised of the fact that the bribery statute was being amended in terms of substance and penalties. We therefore hold that the caption relating to the amendments of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 36.02 does not violate the provisions of Article III, Section 35, Texas Constitution.
Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment because it is so vague and indefinite that it did not apprise him of the offense with which he was charged. We do not agree. The indictment alleges, in pertinent part, as follows:
“. . . GARTH BATES hereinafter referred to as the Defendant, heretofore on or about July 16, 1976, did then and there unlawfully, acting as a party with Ed Riklin, intentionally and knowingly solicit, accept, and agree to accept from Nukie Fontenot a pecuniary benefit, namely, money, with the representation and understanding that the Defendant, a. Texas District Judge presiding in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, would be influenced in the specific exercise of his official decisions, powers, duties and discretion as a District Judge, namely that the Defendant would not sentence Nukie Fontenot to the Texas Department of Corrections in the felony case then pending against Nukie Fonten-ot in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, and that the Defendant would help Nukie Fontenot in the felony case then pending against Nukie Fonten-ot in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, and that the Defendant would be lenient in sentencing Nukie Fontenot in the felony case the pending against Nukie Fontenot in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas . . ”
The indictment employs substantially the language of V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Section 36.02. It does not allege more than one offense, but rather alleges several means of committing the offense of bribery. The court did not err in overruling appellant’s motion to quash the indictment.
Appellant asserts that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction because the testimony of the accomplice witness Fontenot was not corroborated as required by Article 38.14, V.A.C.C.P.
“The test of sufficiency of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice witness is to eliminate the evidence of the accomplice from consideration and then examine evidence of other witnesses to ascertain if there be inculpatory evidence or evidence of incriminating character', which tends to connect the accused with the commission of the offense.”
[130]*130Cherb v. State, 472 S.W.2d 273 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). The evidence in the instant case which corroborates the testimony of the accomplice witness Fontenot includes the following:
(1) the tape recordings which were introduced into evidence showed that appellant had spoken to Fontenot and that appellant’s voice was discernible during conversations between Riklin and Fon-tenot;
(2) appellant and Riklin knew each other well;
(3) appellant was present and observed the exchange of money between Fontenot and Riklin;
(4) appellant was in possession of a portion of the money when he was arrested; and
(5) appellant’s accountant used a portion of the money to purchase a cashier’s check for use in real estate transaction in which appellant was involved.
This evidence is amply sufficient to corroborate the testimony of Fontenot and to sustain the conviction.
Appellant also complains that certain items, including portions of the money paid by Fontenot to Riklin, which were admitted in evidence were taken from him, his car, Riklin and Riklin’s apartment by unlawful searches and seizures. Since appellant had no legitimate expectation of privacy or interest of any kind in either Riklin’s person or his apartment, and since the case against appellant did not depend on possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure, he lacks standing to challenge the admission of the evidence taken from Riklin. Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973); Smith v. State, 530 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).
Detective Musick arrested appellant as he arrived at Riklin’s apartment. Musick testified that he recognized appellant as he drove up to the apartment and that he ran to appellant’s vehicle while displaying his badge and asked appellant to stop. When Musick asked appellant to step from the car, appellant reached into the pockets of his coat. Musick then told appellant to remove his hand from the coat, and appellant doffed the coat and laid it on the seat of the car, saying, “I don’t have anything in my coat.” After appellant stepped from the car he asked why he was being stopped. He then asked Musick to get his car keys, which he said were in his coat, for him. When Musick looked inside the coat, he saw twenty-nine one hundred dollar bills.
Appellant argues that his arrest—and therefore the search of his coat which resulted in the seizure of the $2,900—was unlawful because Musick lacked probable cause to arrest appellant. When appellant was arrested, Musick was aware that incriminating tape recordings had been made of conversations between Fontenot and Rik-lin and between Fontenot and appellant. Musick observed the transfer of money between Fontenot and Riklin and observed that appellant “was very close to the vicinity.” After Riklin received the money from Fontenot, he and appellant departed in different cars at approximately the same time. Appellant was arrested as he drove up to Riklin’s apartment several hours after the exchange of money.
Article 14.01, V.A.C.C.P., provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“(b) A peace officer may arrest an offender without a warrant for any offense committed in his presence or within his view.”
We hold that probable cause existed for appellant’s arrest and that the arrest was authorized by Article 14.01(b), supra. The search of appellant’s coat and the seizure of the money therefrom were conducted incident to a lawful arrest and did not exceed the permissible scope for such a search. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969); Bodde v. State, 568 S.W.2d 344 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Tarpley v. State, 565 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
Appellant urges that the tape recordings were erroneously admitted in evidence because the proper predicate had not [131]*131been established. The necessary predicate for the admission of tape recordings is as follows:
“(1) A showing that the recording device was capable of taking testimony, (2) a showing that the operator of the device was competent, (3) establishment of the authenticity and correctness of the recording, (4) a showing that changes, additions or deletions have not been made, (5) a showing of the manner of the preservation of the recording, (6) identification of the speakers, and (7) a showing that the testimony elicited was voluntarily made without any kind of inducement.
* * * * * *
“. . . [W]e also find that at least some of the requirements can be inferred from the testimony and need not be shown with the same particularity required for admission of other mechanically acquired evidence, such as the results of a breathalyzer test.”
Edwards v. State, 551 S.W.2d 731 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Without indulging in a detailed recitation of Fontenot’s testimony, we merely observe that he established each of the seven elements required by Edwards. We hold that the proper predicate was laid for admission of the tape recordings.
Appellant also argues that the tape recordings were inadmissible because Fontenot did not comply with the provisions of Article 4413(29bb), Sec. 13(a), V.A.T.S. That statute is concerned with the licensing of private investigators and is patently inapplicable to Fontenot, who was taking part in a criminal investigation as an agent of the State.
Appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion for inspection of the original tape recordings of the conversations between Fontenot and Riklin and between Fontenot and appellant. • (Appellant was allowed to inspect copies of the recordings). The court should have granted appellant’s motion to inspect the original tape recordings. Given the facts of this case, however, the failure to do so does not constitute reversible error.
Appellant relies on Detmering v. State, 481 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and Terrell v. State, 521 S.W.2d 618 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). In each of those cases, the defendant sought to inspect the contraband he was charged with possessing; the items of which examination was requested not only constituted important evidence, but were indispensable to the State’s case. The recordings in the instant case constituted only one strand in a web of incriminating evidence adduced at trial. (See the discussion, supra, of the incriminating evidence which tended to connect appellant with the commission of the offense with which he was charged.)
The proper predicate for the introduction of the recordings was laid. The record contains no indication that the recordings were in any way altered, and appellant does not so suggest on appeal.
Article 39.14, V.A.C.C.P., under which appellant moved for an examination of the tape recordings, vests the trial court with discretion in considering such motions, as does Art. 39.02, V.A.C.C.P., which provides for the taking of depositions by the defendant. We have held that before an abuse of discretion in refusing to allow the taking of depositions will be found, the defendant must show that he was thereby injured. James v. State, 546 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Beshears v. State, 461 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). We also have held that the prosecution’s failure to comply with a discovery order under Art. 39.14, supra, may constitute harmless error. Hollowell v. State, 571 S.W.2d 179 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Appellant has not affirmatively shown how he was injured by the court’s refusal to allow inspection of the tape recordings. Consequently, the denial of the motion for inspection constituted harmless error.
Appellant contends in four related grounds of error that certain acts and statements of Riklin were erroneously admitted in evidence because they were hearsay, because their admission violated appellant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him, and because they were mere “narrative declarations.”
[132]*132Where there is sufficient independent evidence to establish a conspiracy, hearsay acts and statements of a conspirator which are made during the course of and in the furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible against another conspirator. Denney v. State, 558 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Delgado v. State, 544 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
The independent evidence of a conspiracy in the instant case is quite ample. It is appellant’s contention, however, that the conspiracy terminated when Fontenot paid the money to Riklin, and any subsequent acts and statements by Riklin were therefore inadmissible. See Delgado v. State, supra. We do not agree.
“[A] conspiracy is not terminated until everything has been done that was contemplated to be done by the conspirators.”
Baugh v. State, 135 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 122 S.W.2d 297 (1938). The conspiracy in the instant case did not terminate upon the completion of the offense of bribery, of which appellant was convicted. It was contemplated by the conspirators that Fonten-ot would be granted a probated sentence, and until that was done, the conspiracy could not terminate. See Denney v. State, supra; Lamberson v. State, 504 S.W.2d 894 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Admission of the acts and statements of Riklin did not violate appellant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. See Morgan v. State, 519 S.W.2d 449 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).
Since appellant has not directed our attention to which particular statements by Riklin were mere “narrative declarations,” nothing is presented for review as to that ground of error. See Williams v. State, 549 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Smith v. State, 547 S.W.2d 6 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).
Appellant urges that the court erred in allowing Wendell Odom, Jr., Charles O. Ford, and Gus George to testify. Odom, an assistant district attorney, testified that appellant had intervened in Rik-lin’s behalf while Odom was investigating Riklin in a consumer fraud case. Ford, an officer of the Houston Police Department, testified that appellant had sought to assist Riklin after Ford had arrested Riklin on a narcotics charge. George, a Harris County deputy sheriff, testified that appellant had asked him to hire Riklin as an employee of the Sheriff’s Department. Appellant argues that Odom, Ford and George should not have been allowed to testify because their testimony showed extraneous offenses committed by appellant which were irrelevant to the offense for which appellant was being tried. We do not agree. The State was entitled to prove, in order to show the existence of a conspiracy, that a close relationship existed between appellant and Rik-lin. More important, the testimony of which appellant complains shows only that he tried to assist Riklin on several occasions and did not show that he was guilty of any offense or misconduct. See Kennedy v. State, 520 S.W.2d 776 (Tex.Cr.App.1975).
Appellant asserts that the court erred in refusing to allow John Tanner, an undercover officer of the Harris County Sheriff’s Department, to testify and rebut certain testimony given by Fontenot. Fontenot testified that he did not have a “deal” with the district attorney’s office to have any pending charges dropped in exchange for his testimony. On cross-examination, Fon-tenot admitted that he sold some jewels to Tanner, but denied involvement in the Mize robbery. Fontenot also denied negotiating to sell guns to Tanner in exchange for narcotics or asking Tanner to kill a man named Pope.
Appellant sought to impeach this evidence with the testimony of Tanner, who testified, on a bill of exception, that he had met Fontenot in his capacity as an undercover officer while trying to purchase machine guns. Originally, Tanner testified, he was to pay for the machine guns with marihuana, but Fontenot later demanded money. While in Fontenot’s pawn shop during these negotiations, Fontenot asked Tanner if Tanner “was interested in doing a jewelry robbery on a salesman.” Tanner told Fontenot he would be interested only after the machine gun negotiations were completed. Fontenot later specifically identi[133]*133fied Mize as the target of the robbery. After this robbery occurred, the negotiations on the machine guns terminated. Tanner then arranged to purchase some of the jewelry from the Mize robbery. Fon-tenot stated that he was the “brains of the operation” and had “set up” the Mize robbery. After Fontenot sold some jewelry to Tanner, he was arrested and subsequently indicted for that offense. Tanner testified that during the negotiations as to the purchase of the jewelry Fontenot asked Tanner if he would be interested in killing an individual named Pope. Fontenot agreed to furnish the gun for the killing and stated he had several stolen guns in his pawn shop.
Appellant argues that this evidence was admissible to impeach Fontenot’s denials of these facts and to rebut the implication his testimony left with the jury that Fontenot was “a fine Christian man.” The court ruled that defense counsel could not introduce evidence of the “machine gun deal,” the “dope deal,” or of the arrangement made by Fontenot to kill Pope, as they were collateral matters, but the court ruled that the defense could introduce the testimony concerning the Mize robbery. Appellant failed to avail himself of the court’s ruling admitting evidence of the Mize robbery by not calling Tanner to testify about it before the jury.
When a witness is cross-examined on a collateral matter, the cross-examining party cannot then contradict the witness. Arechiga v. State, 462 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Gatson v. State, 387 S.W.2d 65 (Tex.Cr.App.1965); Hatley v. State, 533 S.W.2d 27 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Barrett v. State, 86 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 215 S.W. 858 (1919). See 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Sec. 467 (13th ed. 1972). The test as to whether a matter is collateral is whether the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove it as a part of his case tending to establish his plea. Hoffman v. State, 514 S.W.2d 248 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Arechiga v. State, supra. See 3A Wigmore, Evidence, Sec. 1003 (Chadbourn rev. 1970); Wharton, Sec. 467, supra.
Of course, great latitude should be allowed the accused to show a witness’ bias or motive to testify falsely against him. See Castro v. State, 562 S.W.2d 252 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). However, trial courts have considerable discretion as to how and when bias may be proved and as to what evidence is material for that purpose. See Cloud v. State, 567 S.W.2d 801 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, Sec. 457 (13th ed. 1972). In the instant case, no charges had been brought against Fontenot for any of the alleged activities — gun and drug transactions and a murder plot — of which evidence was excluded, nor was it shown that those events were in any way connected to the offense for which appellant was being tried. See Cloud v. State, supra; Garza v. State, 532 S.W.2d 624 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Smith v. State, 516 S.W.2d 415 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). Consequently, the proffered evidence of unrelated misconduct on the part of the witness was not probative of bias or motive to testify falsely, and the trial court properly excluded it.
Appellant makes a number of complaints concerning the court’s charge. First, he urges that the court erred in refusing his requested charge on circumstantial evidence.
Where there is any direct evidence of the main fact to be proved, a charge on circumstantial evidence is not required. Ridyolph v. State, 545 S.W.2d 784 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ransonette v. State, 550 S.W.2d 36 (Tex.Cr.App.1977, Opinion on Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing). Such an instruction need not be given where the State relies only in part on circumstantial evidence, Ransonette v. State, supra; Lawler v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 460, 9 S.W.2d 259 (1927); Coleman v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 235 S.W. 898 (1921), even though the State relies on a chain of circumstances which may be considered the major part of the incriminating evidence. Ransonette v. State, supra; Dodd v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 156, 192 S.W.2d 263 (1946).
Appellant was indicted and tried as a party to the offense of bribery, and the court charged the jury on the law of crimi[134]*134nal responsibility. See V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 7.01. Direct evidence of appellant’s participation in the offense included Fontenot’s testimony concerning conversations with appellant and Riklin and tape recordings of those conversations, appellant’s observation of the exchange of money between Fontenot and Riklin, and appellant’s possession of a portion of that money. The court did not err in refusing the requested charge on circumstantial evidence.
Of the thirteen other requested instructions which appellant contends the court improperly refused, one concerns the law of parties, two deal with the necessity for corroboration of accomplice witnesses’ testimony, and three are addressed to mere presence, association or discussion being insufficient to corroborate the testimony of the accomplice witness. The court charged the jury on the law of parties and the necessity that the testimony of the accomplice witnesses be corroborated. This charge adequately protected appellant’s rights, and the court did not err in refusing the requested instructions.
Appellant has not directed our attention to any evidence which would have raised the issues of mere presence, association and discussion. Appellant witnessed the exchange of money between Fontenot and later was found in possession of a portion of the money. See Dillard v. State, 550 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). Appellant’s requested instructions on these issues were properly refused.
The remaining seven instructions requested by appellant deal with the law of conspiracy. The court instructed the jury as follows regarding the law of conspiracy:
“There have been admitted in evidence statements allegedly made by the witness Nukie Fontenot to Ed Riklin and statements allegedly made by Ed Riklin to Nukie Fontenot, said statements having been made outside the presence of the defendant, Garth Bates. You are instructed that before you may consider such statements, if any, as evidence against the defendant, Garth Bates, you must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Garth Bates, and Ed Riklin had agreed to commit and were acting together in the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment. In this connection you are instructed that you may not find that the defendant, Garth Bates, and Ed Riklin had agreed to commit and were acting together in the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment from consideration of the statements, if any, made outside the presence of the defendant, Garth Bates, by and between Nukie Fontenot and Ed Riklin, alone, but there must be other evidence, in addition to such statements, to warrant a finding that the defendant, Garth Bates, and Ed Riklin had agreed to commit and were acting together in the commission of the offense alleged in the indictment.
“If you do not so believe, or if you have a reasonable doubt thereof, you cannot consider such statements, if any, as evidence against this defendant, Garth Bates.”
Appellant argues that he was entitled to his requested instructions on the law of conspiracy because he was tried as a conspirator. This is not the case. Appellant was indicted and tried as a party to the offense of bribery, and the court’s charge authorized the jury to convict appellant on this theory alone. The law of conspiracy was relevant only insofar as the admissibility of certain acts and statements was concerned, and the court’s charge thereon adequately protected appellant’s rights.
Appellant’s final contention is that the following argument by the prosecutor, to which no objection was made, constituted fundamental error:
“Believable judge? You know there’s a little thing in law that allows a person when they are on trial and they take the stand and credibility is under attack, they can bring in character witnesses to show that they are a person of truth and voracity. Maybe I missed this. I didn’t see a one. The Judge who denies his guilt even on this.”
[135]*135We cannot characterize the argument of which appellant complains as being so prejudicial that it could not have been rendered harmless by the sustaining of an objection thereto and an instruction to the jury to disregard it. See Baker v. State, 368 S.W.2d 627 (Tex.Cr.App.1963). Appellant has waived any error by his failure to object. See Williams v. State, 463 S.W.2d 436 (Tex.Cr.App.1971).
The judgment is affirmed.
ODOM and CLINTON, JJ., not participating.