[525]*525WOMACK, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court,
in which McCORMICK, P.J., and MANSFIELD, KELLER, and KEASLER, JJ., joined.
The appellant, who had agreed to murder Robert Fratta’s wife for remuneration, engaged Howard Guidry to do the shooting. He provided Guidry with a gun, and on November 9, 1994, he transported Gui-dry to and from Fratta’s house where the lolling was done. The appellant was convicted of capital murder in July 1996. Penal Code § 19.03(a). Pursuant to the jury’s answers to the special issues set forth in Code of Criminal Procedure article 37.071, sections 2(b) and 2(e), the trial judge sentenced the appellant to death. Article 37.071, § 2(g).1 Direct appeal to this Court is automatic. Article 37.071, § 2(h). The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged. The appellant raises seventeen points of error and a “point for review.” We shall affirm.
I. Voir Dire
In point of error number seventeen, the appellant complains that the trial court erroneously denied a challenge for cause against Venire Member William Brittain. The appellant claims that Mr. Brittain was biased against a phase of the law in violation of article 35.16(c)(2). He argues that Mr. Brittain refused to acknowledge that the society in the future dangerousness special issue2 includes prison society. A close reading of the voir dire transcript, with the relevant parts underscored, reveals that Mr. Brittain understood that the appellant might be less of a threat while in prison.
Q: You have a forty-year-old man gets a life sentence. You know Judge is telling you that he’s going to do 40 years minimum. So, now he’s eighty years old. You think, I don’t really want him out as my neighbor. I think he might be a threat to me out here. But if he’s in the penitentiary for the next forty years, he may not be a threat in that society in there?
A: Right.
Q: So, I might answer the question one way for a 17-year-old kid. And I might answer it the opposite way for a guy when he’s 40 when he goes in. See that way of thinking?
A: Yes.
Q: Does that make sense to you?
A: It makes sense.
From this portion of the voir dire, it is clear that the venire member understood the prison versus free-world dichotomy that the appellant complains the venire member refused to consider. However, the voir dire questions that the appellant was asking involved more than the distinction between prison society and civilian society. His inquiry also included the idea that the advanced age of the prisoner would lessen his future dangerousness after release.
Q: Would you be willing to consider that here’s my 20 minute question. When you look at society would you be willing to consider the age of the person and the length of sentence when you’re deciding if somebody is a threat to society or not?
A: No, not on the age if they’ve committed it.
Q: And tell me why you wouldn’t?
A: Why I wouldn’t?
Q: Right.
A: I think that they should have thought about that before they committed the crime. I wouldn’t worry about the age.
Q: Okay. And that’s what you’re deciding in the first phase, guilty or not guilty?
[526]*526A: Right.
Q: But now I’m talking about in the context of the first special issue. And you are trying to decide whether that person is a threat to society. What would you want to know about when you look at whether they are a threat or not to society.
A: Their background, • you know. If they committed crimes or things before.
Q: Okay. And what are you thinking about when you think about society? What, were you analyzing that threat?
A: Just want him on the street or not.
Q: Exactly. He ain’t going to be on the street.
A: Right.
This part of the voir dire shows that the venire member understood that some offenders may be older than others when they go to prison, but that he refused to acknowledge the age of the offender to be relevant to an assessment of guilt. It does not reflect that he had discarded the prison versus free-world dichotomy. When the defense counsel focused the venire member’s attention onto the punishment issues, he maintained that he would not consider age in deciding future dangerousness.
Q: So, that’s what, the point I’m trying to get across to you. And I know it’s a new concept and I appreciate you working through it with me. But he’s not coming back on the street for 40 calendar years minimum. So, it wouldn’t be fair, would it, for you to answer that first special issue thinking he’s going to get out tomorrow that he may be a threat but wouldn’t be in the penitentiary? See what I’m saying?
A: I see what you are saying.
Q: Would you be willing to consider society to include the penitentiary in this context?
A: No, I still have to listen to the case, you know.
Q: Right.
A: To me, age doesn’t make the difference.
Q: You would not be willing to consider it in answering the first special issue?
A: No.
The venire member repeated that he understood the dichotomy the defense had presented, but he rejected the notion that the age of the offender when he went into prison would be relevant. When he answered the question of whether he would be willing to consider society to include the penitentiary, he simply reserved the right to make his determination of future dangerousness based on the particularized facts with which he would be presented. Considering the entirety of his testimony on the topic, it seems clear that he understood that society included prison, but that he refused to consider the age of an offender when determining future dangerousness.
A juror is not challengeable for cause because he refuses to give mitigating effect to particular evidence. Morrow v. State, 910 S.W.2d 471, 473 (Tex.Cr.App.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1192, 116 S.Ct. 1683, 134 L.Ed.2d 784 (1996). In Soria v. State, 933 S.W.2d 46, 65-66 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1253, 117 S.Ct. 2414, 138 L.Ed.2d 179 (1997), we held that although a juror in a capital case “would give no weight to age in considering punishment [that] does not subject him to a challenge for cause.” Id. at 66; see also Massey v. State, 933 S.W.2d 141, 150 (Tex.Cr.App.1996) (holding that venire members were not challengeable for cause based on a refusal to consider age as mitigating evidence in capital case). Point of error number seventeen is overruled.
II. Guilt Phase
In a “point for review,” the appellant asks us to review employment records of a witness, which the trial court sealed after inspecting them in camera. The witness was a sheriffs deputy who participated in the custodial interrogation that led to the [527]*527appellant’s written statement. The appellant subpoenaed the records because he thought they would contain favorable evidence about the witness’s “interrogation practices.” The trial court, finding no evidence favorable to the appellant, ruled that the records would not be given to him. We have examined the records, and we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant access to them.
III. Punishment Phase Testimony
In the appellant’s third point of error, he argues that the trial court erred by excluding from the jury during the punishment phase of his trial the prosecutor’s plea offer of 55 years. He argues that a plea offer of 55 years, as opposed to an offer of life, is mitigating evidence relevant to the jury’s determination of special issue number two in that it reflects that the prosecutor did not believe the appellant to be a continuing danger to society. The State counters that the plea offer was solely motivated by the State’s desire for evidence against the appellant’s co-defen-’ dants, and the offer did not reflect the prosecutor’s evaluation of the appellant’s death-worthiness.
The trial judge excluded the evidence without reference to any particular rule of evidence, nor did he require the prosecutor to state the specific grounds for the State’s objection to the introduction of this evidence. The trial judge excluded the evidence because he was concerned that if the plea agreement was made public, it might affect the trial of the appellant’s co-defendant. Concern for the impact on a subsequent trial should be dealt with in that case through the voir dire of prospective jurors, see Rideau v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723, 83 S.Ct. 1417, 10 L.Ed.2d 663 (1963); Adami v. State, 524 S.W.2d, 693, 704 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), a continuance, see Hernandez v. State, 643 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1144, 103 S.Ct. 3128, 77 L.Ed.2d 1379 (1983), or a venue change, see, e.g., Brimage v. Texas, 918 S.W.2d 466, 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
However, if the trial court’s decision was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case, we will sustain it. McFarland v. State, 845 S.W.2d 824, 846 n. 15 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 963, 113 S.Ct. 2937, 124 L.Ed.2d 686 (1993). This is true even if the trial judge failed to give any reason or used the wrong reason for the ruling. Romero v. State, 800 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). Our standard of review for eviden-tiary decisions by the trial judge is the abuse of discretion standard. Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 378 (Tex.Cr.App.1990); Marras v. State, 741 S.W.2d 395, 404 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
In Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 843, 116 S.Ct. 131, 133 L.Ed.2d 80 (1995), this Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the State’s plea bargain offer of life imprisonment. The State had argued in Smith that the excluded evidence of the plea bargain was inadmissible under Rule 408.3 After ruling that Rule 408 is inapplicable to plea offers, we evaluated the trial court’s decision under Rule 403. Id. at 843. We admitted that the plea bargain “may be minimally relevant to a State [528]*528District Attorney’s office belief that the defendant was not a future danger.” Id. at 844. However, we found that the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of both unfair prejudice and of misleading the jury. Id. at 843-44; Tex.R. Evid. 403. The multitude of motivations that a prosecutor may have in offering a life sentence in a capital case dilute the probative value of that offer and may mislead the jury as to the true motivations of the prosecutor. See id. at 844.
We also identified a policy rationale for excluding plea offers by the government. Public policy favors the conclusion of litigation by compromise and settlement, both in criminal and civil cases, and allowing a criminal defendant to introduce evidence about a sentence offered by the State during plea negotiations clearly militates against this policy. See generally id. at 844 n. 6. If evidence of plea bargain offers were admissible, “the State would be ably discouraged from making such offers in the future, and plea bargaining is essential to the administration of justice in America.” Id. The decision to admit or exclude this evidence was soundly within the discretion of the trial judge. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence. The appellant’s third point of error is overruled.
In point of error number four, the appellant complains that the trial court excluded part of the testimony of Dr. Walter Quijano from the jury during sentencing. The proposed testimony of Dr. Quija-no would have been that he would not consider the appellant to be a continuing threat while in prison. Dr. Quijano based his opinion on the appellant’s current jail classification as nonviolent, the offense with which the appellant was charged, and the level of resources that the prison system possesses to control the danger of inmates. This testimony would have been used to convince the jury that under the special issue the appellant was not a continuing threat posing a future danger to society.
The trial court ruled that Dr. Quijano might talk about the prison system classification and level of resources, but he might not speculate how the classification might apply to the appellant. The trial judge also ruled that Dr. Quijano could not mention the appellant’s current jail classification, but he could state that he had reviewed the jail records of the appellant in forming his opinion. The appellant made a timely objection when the trial judge restricted the testimony, and the issue was properly preserved for appeal. The appellant argues that these restrictions on the testimony of Dr. Quijano were an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. We will uphold evidentiary rulings on appeal if the trial court’s decision was correct on any theory of law applicable to the case. See McFarland, 845 S.W.2d at 846 n. 15.
The trial court prohibited Dr. Quijano from hypothesizing as to the application of the prison classification system to the appellant. However, Dr. Quijano stated that he was unable to predict the classification that the prison system would assign to the appellant. The testimony of Dr. Quijano concerning the prison classification system was not particularized to the appellant, and Dr. Quijano did not establish that the current jail classification would dictate his classification in prison. Therefore, this restriction on the testimony of Dr. Quijano cannot have prevented Dr. Quijano from testifying that he did not consider the appellant to be a continuing threat to society. The appellant cannot complain about the restriction of the trial court on the application of the prison classification system to the appellant because Dr. Quijano had no opinion as to that application.
The other restriction on the testimony of Dr. Quijano was that the trial court prohibited Dr. Quijano from testifying as to the current jail classification of the appellant. The jail classification of the appellant as nonviolent was inadmissable hearsay. The jailer’s opinion of the dan[529]*529gerousness of the appellant was hearsay because it was a statement not made by Dr. Quijano that would have been offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, that the defendant was not dangerous. However, the opinion of an expert witness may be informed by the opinion of others. Dr. Quijano was properly permitted to state that he had reviewed the jail classification as a basis for his expert testimony, but the classification itself remained inad-missable. See Tex.R. Evid. 703, 705(a).4 The trial court did not abuse his discretion in excluding the hearsay underlying the opinion of Dr. Quijano.
The appellant argues that Dr. Quijano was prohibited from stating his opinion that the appellant would not pose a continuing threat because the trial court excluded the underlying bases for his opinion. As we have said, the trial court was within its discretion in excluding the jail classification of the appellant. Never did the trial court prevent Dr. Quijano from stating his opinion of the continuing threat posed by the appellant. The notion that Dr. Quijano was unable to testify that he thought the appellant did not pose a continuing threat without also stating the current jail classification is without merit, because the trial court permitted Dr. Quijano to state that he had reviewed the jail ree-ords. Dr. Quijano testified that the prison system had sufficient resources to control the dangerousness of the inmates. Dr. Quijano was free to elaborate as to the threat posed by the appellant, but the appellant never inquired beyond this general question. The trial court never prevented defense counsel from asking Dr. Quijano if he thought that the appellant posed a continuing threat. Since we find no reversible error, point of error number four is overruled.
IV. Punishment Phase Instructions
Although the evidence showed that Howard Guidry engaged in the conduct of murder, the court’s charge at the guilt stage of the trial authorized the jury to find the appellant criminally responsible for Guidry’s conduct as a party.5 In such cases, article 37.071, section 2(b)(2) requires that at the punishment stage “the court shall submit the following issue[ ] to the jury: ... whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken.”6
Before trial the appellant moved the court to hold the issue unconstitutional. Counsel said, “Judge, the defendant’s posi[530]*530tion is that we would waive that [issue], if at all possible. We consider Special Issue No. 2 to be unconstitutional and on those grounds as previously stated to the Court, we don’t want that question.” Although the court did not agree that the issue was unconstitutional, it did agree to omit the issue from the jury charge and to forbid the State from asking the prospective jurors about it in voir dire examination.
Now in points of error one and two the appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to submit the issue in the jury charge and in accepting the verdict without an answer to the issue. He relies on Powell v. State, 897 S.W.2d 307 (Tex.Cr.App.1994).
In Powell we considered a capital case which had been retried after a reversal on appeal. During the pendency of that appeal, an amendment of article 37.071 had changed the requirements for the court’s charge at the punishment stage. The amendment deleted a requirement that the charge include an issue on “deliberateness,” 7 substituting an issue for eases that were tried on the law of parties.8 The amendment did not require any change of the charge in Powell’s trial because he committed his offense before the effective date of the amending act, which had a savings clause that continued in effect the former law.9 Nevertheless Powell requested that the trial court submit the new issue rather than the former one, and the court did so. We held that this was a reversible error.
The Powell analysis was done in terms of preservation of error. It began with Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), in which we set out the basic concept that in preserving error for appellate review there are three classes of rules: forfeitable rights which require that a party request the court to act, waivable rights which must be implemented unless affirmatively waived by the party, and absolute requirements which cannot be waived or forfeited. Powell, 897 S.W.2d at 316. The Court found that Powell’s “case is analogous to those cases addressing the waiver of statutorily required sentences and sentencing procedures.” IMd10 The analysis ended thus (id. at 317):
We cannot allow trial courts and criminal defendants to mutually consent to usurp the powers of the legislature. Thus, we must affirm the principle of absolute requirements and prohibitions which are not optional, waivable, or for-feitable, stating that neither a capital murder defendant nor a trial court may ignore the statutory scheme mandated by the effective dates of Article 37.071. The effective dates of statutes are absolute requirements, non waivable and nonforfeitable; criminal defendants may not in Texas legislate the law to be applied in their case.11
[531]*531The analysis of the question in terms of the rules for waiver ignores the crucial distinction between those rules and the law of invited error. The question was not whether Powell could waive a right, it was whether he could complain of an action he requested; this is more than, and different from, waiver.
Waiver might usefully be distinguished from what is sometimes called “invited error.” If a party affirmatively seeks action by the trial court, that party cannot later contend that the action was error. This is not really a waiver of error previously committed. Rather, it is part of the definition of what can constitute error, and quite reasonably defines error of which a party may complain as excluding those actions of the trial court actually sought by the party in that tribunal.
George E. Dix and Robert 0. Dawson, 43 Texas Practice — Criminal Practice and Procedure § 42.141 (Supp.1999) (footnote omitted).
The doctrine of invited error is properly thought of, not as a species of waiver, but as estoppel. This Court first pointed out the relationship between the doctrines of estoppel and invited error in jury charges in Carbough v. State, 49 Tex.Crim. 452, 455-56, 93 S.W. 738 (1906):
In the later case of M., K & T. Ry. v. Eyer et al., [96 Tex. 72, 74-75, 70 S.W. 529, 529-30 (1902),] supra, the question again came under review before the Supreme Court. Speaking of invited error, Chief Justice Gaines, delivering the opinion of the court, said: “The rule in question is but a deduction from the doctrine of estoppel. Where a party by a request for a ruling leads the court into error, he should be precluded from claiming a reversal of the judgment by reason of the error so committed. To hold otherwise would be to permit him to take advantage of his own wrong. Where the court, upon the trial is requested to affirm a proposition of law in the charge, and it is so affirmed the rule applies. Such was the case of Railroad Co. v. Sein, 89 Tex. 63, 33 S.W. 215, 216.” This is the last enunciation of this doctrine that has been called to our attention at the hands of the Supreme Court. Numerous decisions have been cited supra, from this and the Courts of Civil Appeals of this state, affirming the doctrine laid down by these decisions. If the rule is correct, and it seems the authorities cited settle it, it is not reversible error that there may be some omission or some defect in the requested charge given, and the authorities seem to place it upon the ground that the party complaining is estopped, and by asking the special charge, whether given or refused, affirms the proposition laid down by the court in the charge given.
Just as the law of entrapment es-tops the State from making an offense of conduct that it induced, the law of invited error estops a party from making an appellate error of an action it induced.
The rule of invited error in jury charges is one of long standing, and it applies to the improper submission of jury charges at the punishment stage of a capital trial.12 The rejection of it in Powell was not justified by the analysis which asked whether a statutory requirement could be waived.
The Powell Court gave another reason for reversal.13 It said that a waiver of trial [532]*532by jury, which is forbidden in a capital case in which the State sought the death penalty,14 occurred when the verdict did not include a special issue which was required by the applicable statute. There are several fatal flaws in this reasoning. To begin with, if this were an improper waiver, the doctrine of invited error estops the appellant from complaining of it. Second, it is untrue on its face; the case was tried to a jury. The worst that can be said is that the jury returned a verdict which did not answer one issue. Third, if an omission of a punishment issue amounted to waiver of trial by jury, then any omission of an element from the jury charge at the guilt stage of any criminal case would amount to a waiver of trial by jury on guilt. Just as a statute requires a jury verdict on the punishment issues in a capital trial, the United States Constitution requires a jury verdict on each element of the offense at the guilt stage of every criminal trial. See Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813,-, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 1711, 143 L.Ed.2d 985, 994 (1999). But we do not treat omissions of the elements of offenses as waivers.15 See Almanza v. State, 686 S.W.2d 157, 172-74 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (holding that the omission of an element from the authorization paragraph in a non-capital case is error subject to a harm analysis in which the appellate court reviews the entire jury charge and the state of the evidence in the case to decide whether the error requires reversal). They are subject to the normal requirements for preservation of error. And the same should be true for the punishment issues in a capital case.
We should not have permitted Powell to raise as error an action that he procured. Insofar as we did so, our decision in Powell v. State, 897 S.W.2d 307, 314-19 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), is overruled.
Just as we should not have permitted Powell to complain of the trial court’s submitting a jury charge as he requested, we will not permit this appellant to complain of the trial court’s deleting a jury charge as he requested. The appellant’s first and second points of error in this case are overruled under the doctrine of invited error.
In point of error number nine, the appellant asserts that the refusal of the trial court to instruct the jury that a life sentence would be imposed if they failed to answer a special issue is reversible error. There is no constitutional prohibition to concealing from the jurors the consequences of their deliberations, so long as they are not misled into believing that ultimate responsibility for the verdict rests elsewhere. McFarland v. State, 928 S.W.2d 482, 519 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); Draughon v. State, 831 S.W.2d 331, 338 (Tex.Cr.App.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 926, 113 S.Ct. 3045, 125 L.Ed.2d 730 (1993). “The jury is not informed of the consequences of a hung jury, but each juror will know that without his or her vote the death sentence cannot be imposed.” Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 559 (Tex.Cr.App.1995) cert. denied, 519 U.S. 826, 117 S.Ct. 88, 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). Point of error number nine is overruled.
The appellant complains in point of error number ten that the trial judge erroneously refused to instruct the jury that they could not consider unadjudicated offenses during the punishment phase unless the prosecution had proven them beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge to the jury stated that the State was required [533]*533to prove each of the special issues beyond a reasonable doubt. The charge to the jury adequately protected the appellant because the charge comprehends the burden of proof that the State bears for the entirety of evidence introduced during the punishment phase. We have consistently held that it is not error for the trial judge to refuse to give a separate instruction concerning unadjudicated offenses when the State is required to prove the punishment issues beyond a reasonable doubt. Burks v. State, 876 S.W.2d 877, 911 (Tex.Cr.App.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1114, 115 S.Ct. 909, 130 L.Ed.2d 791 (1995); Coble v. State, 871 S.W.2d 192, 208 (Tex.Cr.App.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 829, 115 S.Ct. 101, 130 L.Ed.2d 50 (1994); Lewis v. State, 815 S.W.2d 560, 567 (Tex.Cr. App.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 920, 112 S.Ct. 1296, 117 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992); Santana v. State, 714 S.W.2d 1, 11-12 (Tex.Cr.App.1986).
The appellant argues that our decision in Mitchell v. State, 931 S.W.2d 950 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), amends this line of decisions. Mitchell held that in a noncapital case, a defendant is entitled to a limiting instruction that informs the jury that unadjudicated offenses offered during the punishment phase must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 954. However, Mitchell does not take into account the instruction in a capital case that the State must prove the special issues beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell, therefore, is inapplicable to the capital sentencing structure, and the appellant’s point of error is overruled.
In point of error number eleven, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction to the jury that limited their consideration of other bad acts to the future dangerousness special issue. In point of error number twelve, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing a limiting instruction that the jury disregard evidence of the commission of the primary offense in deciding whether he had committed the other bad acts. The other bad acts to which the appellant refers are an aggravated robbery of a car salesperson, a dismissed charge of attempted murder of his brother-in-law, and the burglary of the victim’s home and assault on the victim before the instant murder.
The trial court refused to limit the jury’s consideration of the appellant’s other bad acts to the future dangerousness special issue. Because the other bad acts of the appellant were also relevant to the mitigation special issue, which was the only other special issue before the jury at punishment, the trial court did not err in refusing to give the limiting instruction. A “limiting instruction is not required where evidence can be considered on any relevant issue in the case.” Lane v. State, 822 S.W.2d 35, 40 (Tex.Cr.App.1991) (upholding the refusal to give a limiting instruction that would have restricted the jury’s consideration of other bad acts to the future dangerousness special issue because the other bad acts were arguably relevant to the deliberateness special issue). Appellant’s eleventh point of error is overruled.
When evidence is offered and admitted for a limited purpose, the party who opposes admission of that evidence bears the burden to request a limiting instruction. Garcia v. State, 887 S.W.2d 862, 878 (Tex.Crim.App.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1021, 115 S.Ct. 1368, 131 L.Ed.2d 223 (1995). The appellant made a general objection when the State introduced the evidence that presumed to restate any objections made at trial, but he did not object to the introduction of the primary offense and did not request any limiting instructions. The failure of the appellant to object to the introduction of the primary offense at punishment or to request a limiting instruction when the evidence was offered forfeited any error on that issue. The appellant’s twelfth point of error is overruled.
[534]*534The appellant argues in his thirteenth point of error that the trial court erred in refusing to submit special-verdict forms to the jury that would specify whether they had found each of the unadjudicated offenses to have been committed. The appellant claims that this Court cannot perform a meaningful sufficiency review of the jury’s answer to the future dangerousness special issue without answers to the requested special-verdict forms. Setting aside that the appellant has not challenged the sufficiency of the jury’s answer to the future dangerousness special issue, we observe that there is no requirement that the State prove all of the elements of unadjudicated offenses submitted at the punishment phase before the trial court can admit the evidence. See Spence v. State, 795 S.W.2d 743, 758-59 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 932, 111 S.Ct. 1339, 113 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). In Matchett v. State, 941 S.W.2d 922 (Tex.Cr.App.1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1107, 117 S.Ct. 2487, 138 L.Ed.2d 994 (1997), we held that the lack of this requirement meant that the trial court is under no obligation to submit to the jury special-verdict forms listing the elements of unadjudicated offenses alleged by the State at punishment. See id. at 937. Nor do we think that the future dangerousness special issue necessitates special-verdict forms as to the commission of unadjudicat-ed offenses alleged at punishment. Point of error thirteen is overruled.
In point of error number fourteen, the appellant complains that the trial court erroneously refused his request that the jury be charged that they may consider any evidence to be mitigating even if irrelevant to the moral culpability of the defendant. He claims that his requested charge was necessary to correct the definition of mitigating evidence in article 37.071, section 2(f)(4), which unconstitutionally limits the definition of mitigating evidence to evidence that reduces the appellant’s moral blameworthiness. Faced with a similar challenge in Cantu v. State, 939 S.W.2d 627, 648 (Tex.Cr.App.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 557, 139 L.Ed.2d 399 (1997), we held that article 37.071, section 2(e) solves any potential narrowing problem in section 2(f)(4). Article 37.071, section 2(e) instructs the trial court to charge the jury that they must “take into consideration ‘all of the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant’ in determining whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist to warrant a life sentence” Cantu, 939 S.W.2d at 648-49 (emphasis added in Cantu). Although mitigating evidence is statutorily defined as that evidence which “a juror might regal'd as reducing a defendant’s moral blameworthiness,” article 37.071, section 2(f)(4), the trial court’s instructions pursuant to section 2(e) provide the jury with a vehicle to respond to a broader range of mitigating evidence. See Cantu, 939 S.W.2d at 648-49; Lawton, 913 S.W.2d at 555-56; Goff v. State, 931 S.W.2d 537, 556 (Tex.Cr.App.1496), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1171, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997).
However, “in order for mitigating evidence to have relevance beyond the scope of the special issues, there must be relevance between the mitigating evidence and the circumstances surrounding the crime that tends to excuse or explain the criminal act, so as to make that particular defendant less deathworthy.” Goff, 931 S.W.2d at 556. Although article 37.071, section 2(e) allows the consideration of background and character evidence in addition to the personal moral culpability of the defendant, section 2(e) does not necessarily permit the introduction of any evidence that the defense believes may sway a jury to render a life verdict. We have held that evidence that relies on mere sympathy or emotional response is irrelevant to the jury’s consideration of the deathworthiness of the defendant. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 126 (Tex.Cr.App.1996) (ruling that photo[535]*535graphs of the defendant which depict a cheerful early childhood are irrelevant because such evidence has no relationship to his conduct); Goff, 931 S.W.2d at 555-56 (ruling that the homosexuality of the victim, if unknown to the defendant and unrelated to the crime, is irrelevant to the jury’s ability to consider and give mitiga-ing effect to the background or character of the defendant); accord McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 522 (upholding an anti-sympathy charge as properly focusing the attention of the jury on those factors relating to a moral inquiry into the culpability of the defendant).
The instruction that the appellant requested attempted to change the statutory balance between the definition of mitigating evidence in section 2(f)(4) and the broader evaluation of the deathworthiness of the defendant in section 2(e). The wording of the instruction that the trial court denied would have provided an alternate definition of mitigating evidence, which we have previously held is “contrary to the law.” Skinner v. State, 956 S.W.2d 532, 542 (Tex.Cr.App.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. , 118 S.Ct. 1526, 140 L.Ed.2d 677 (1998). The jury in the appellant’s case was instructed that a mitigating circumstance may include, but is not limited to, any aspect of a defendant’s character, background, record, emotional instability, intelligence or circumstances of the crime which could make a death sentence inappropriate. The appellant does not complain of any evidence to which the jury could not give effect; therefore, “even if the statute is deficient in the way that he suggests, he did not suffer the deficiency.” McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 518. The appellant’s fourteenth point of error is overruled.
V. Special Issues Challenges
In the appellant’s fifth through seventh points of error, he claims that the mitigation issue at punishment, article 37.071, section (2)(e), violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In his fifth point of error, the appellant contends that the mitigation issue unconstitutionally omits a burden of proof. We have held that because there are no constitutional limits on the jury’s discretion to consider mitigating evidence, the constitution does not require a burden of proof. Anderson v. State, 932 S.W.2d 502, 508 (Tex.Cr.App.1996) cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1122, 117 S.Ct. 2517, 138 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1997). The appellant acknowledges the case law against him, but presents an argument that he claims this court has overlooked in previous decisions. The appellant argues that the mitigation special issue permits the introduction of nonstatu-tory aggravating evidence in addition to mitigating evidence, and this nonstatutory aggravating evidence is not subject to a burden of proof in violation of Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 110 S.Ct. 3047, 111 L.Ed.2d 511 (1990). The nonstatutory evidence of which the appellant primarily complains is the introduction of victim impact evidence.
However, the appellant’s reliance on Walton is misplaced. Walton ruled that the allocation of the burden of proof as to mitigating factors cannot remove the burden of proof that the State must bear in proving elements of the crime or statutory aggravators. Walton, 497 U.S. at 650, 110 S.Ct. 3047. The lack of a burden of proof in the mitigation special issue does not lessen the State’s burden to prove the elements of capital murder, which include the statutory aggravators. The jury does not decide the mitigation special issue until after the State has proven the elements of capital murder and that the defendant is a future danger, article 37.071, section 2(b)(1); therefore the concerns of Walton are not implicated. The relevance of victim impact evidence to mitigation evidence was countenanced by the United States Supreme Court inPayne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 111 S.Ct. 2597, 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991), accord Ford v. State 919 S.W.2d 107, 115-16 (Tex.Cr.App.1996).
[536]*536In Payne, the Supreme Court explained “that a State may properly conclude that for the jury to assess meaningfully the defendant’s moral culpability and blameworthiness, it should have before it at the sentencing phase evidence of the specific harm caused by the defendant.” Payne, 501 U.S. at 825, 111 S.Ct. 2597. The thrust of Payne is that victim impact evidence is relevant to counteract “the mitigating evidence which the defendant is entitled to put in,” id., that is, victim impact evidence is relevant to the normative decision of the jury under section 2(e). Victim impact evidence is not subject to a burden of proof because it is relevant to the mitigation special issue instead of to a statutory aggravator found in the definitions of capital murder. The appellant’s fifth point of error is overruled.
In the appellant’s sixth point of error, he claims that the mitigation special issue is unconstitutional because it fails to provide meaningful appellate review of the jury’s decision. We previously have ruled that the normative decision of the jury as to the mitigation special issue is not amenable to appellate review. See McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 498-99; Morris v. State, 940 S.W.2d 610, 614 (Tex.Cr.App.1996). Point of error number six is overruled.
In the appellant’s seventh point of error, he argues that article 44.251(a) requires that the mitigation special issue be subject to appellate review. We have ruled before that article 44.251(a) does not require us to undertake a sufficiency review of the jury answers to the special issues. See Eldridge v. State, 940 S.W.2d 646, 652-53 (Tex.Cr.App.1996); McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 498-99. “Our inability to effectuate Article 44.251 in relation to the second special issue does not, however, make Article 37.071 § (2)(e) constitutionally infirm. We conduct legal sufficiency reviews of a guilty verdict and of the first special issue. We do not think that the Constitution requires any further appellate review of Article 37.071 § 2(e).” Eldridge, 940 S.W.2d at 653. The appellant’s seventh point of error is overruled.
In point of error number eight, the appellant argues that requiring ten votes for the jury to return a negative answer to the first special issue and an affirmative answer to the third special issue violates the Eighth Amendment. The appellant complains that the majority of the jury could improperly pressure an individual juror who wants to vote for life to instead vote for death. This court has consistently upheld as constitutional the instructions in article 37.071, sections 2(d) and 2(f), known as the “10-12” rule. See McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 519; Lawton, 913 S.W.2d at 558-59; Nobles v. State, 843 S.W.2d 503, 509-10 (Tex.Cr.App.1992). The instructions on answering the special issues do not mislead the jury into thinking that an affirmative answer should be given unless ten or more jurors agree to give a negative one. Draughon, 831 S.W.2d at 337-38; McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 519; Lawton, 913 S.W.2d at 559. Any juror who wishes to vote life contrary to the votes of the majority is “given an avenue to accommodate the complained-of potential disagreements,” McFarland, 928 S.W.2d at 519; see also Lawton, 913 S.W.2d at 558-59, for “every juror knows that capital punishment cannot be imposed without the unanimous agreement of the jury on all three special issues.” Lawton, 913 S.W.2d at 559.
The frequency of attack on the constitutionality of the “10-12” rule leads us to discuss the merits of the procedure. In Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor may not mislead the jury into thinking that the responsibility for imposing the death penalty lay not with the jury but with the appellate courts who review the case. Id. at 341. The Supreme Court reasoned that the jury might improperly “delegate” its decision whether to impose the death penalty to the appellate courts. [537]*537Id. at 331-33. One of the underlying values of the Caldwell decision is to ensure the proper level of juror deliberation. The “10-12” rule serves this value by not giving the jury the consequences of a nonver-dict, while at the same time it ensures that the death penalty will not be imposed without the unanimous consent of the jury. Accord Davis v. State, 782 S.W.2d 211, 221-22 (Tex.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 940, 110 S.Ct. 2193, 109 L.Ed.2d 520 (1990) (quoting Barfield v. Harris, 540 F.Supp. 451, 472 n. 17 (E.D.N.C.1982), affirmed, 719 F.2d 58 (4th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1210, 104 S.Ct. 2401, 81 L.Ed.2d 357 (1984)). The appellant’s point of error number eight is overruled.
VI. Post-trial
The appellant complains in his sixteenth point of error that the trial court denied the appellant effective assistance of counsel by advising the jurors that they were under no obligation to answer any questions regarding their service. In his fifteenth point of error, the appellant argues that the trial court denied him effective assistance of counsel by releasing the jurors from defense subpoenas issued for a motion for a new trial. The jury members are under no duty to speak to defense counsel about their service or deliberations. Phillips v. State, 511 S.W.2d 22, 30-31 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Graves v. State, 382 S.W.2d 486, 489 (Tex.Cr.App.1964), cert. denied, 380 U.S. 967, 85 S.Ct. 1114, 14 L.Ed.2d 157 (1965). Point of error number sixteen is overruled.
The trial court released the jurors from the defense subpoenas on the ground that the affidavit that supported the motion by the appellant had alleged no misconduct by the jury. Our case law is clear that to sustain a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct, the appellant was required to have alleged facts that amounted to misconduct through the affidavit of a juror or another person who was in a position to know the facts. Dugard v. State, 688 S.W.2d 524, 528 (Tex.Cr.App. 1985). This Court has required “something more than a mere allegation” of juror misconduct to avoid “fishing expeditions” by defendants. Stephenson v. State, 494 S.W.2d 900, 909 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). The underlying affidavit by the appellant’s investigator revealed that four of the jurors talked with the investigator and gave differing accounts of how the members read the charge. Nothing in the affidavit alleges facts that amount to jury misconduct, and therefore the trial judge was within his discretion in releasing the jury members from the defense subpoenas. Point of error number fifteen is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
KELLER, J., filed a concurring opinion.
HOLLAND, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MEYERS and PRICE, JJ., joined.
JOHNSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.