OPINION
June 14, 1989
WHITE, Judge.Appellant was convicted of capital murder. See V.T.C.A., Penal Code Sec. 19.-03(a)(2). This offense originated in Lubbock County. Venue was changed to Tom Green County where appellant’s first trial took place. The conviction was reversed on appeal. Lackey v. State, 638 S.W.2d 439 (Tex.Cr.App.1982). On remand the instant cause was tried on a change of venue in Midland County. After the jury made an affirmative finding on both of the two special issues submitted under Art. 37.-071(b)(1) and (2), V.A.C.C.P., the trial court imposed the penalty of death. This case is before us on direct appeal.
Appellant presents eight points of error in this appeal. Through them, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he committed the burglary with the intent to commit aggravated rape, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support an affirmative answer to special issue number two. Article 37.071(b)(2), supra. A review of the facts is necessary.
The instant cause is the second trial of appellant for this offense. The appellant’s first conviction was reversed and remanded by this Court. Lackey v. State, supra. The factual summary in that opinion accurately reflects the facts proven at appel-*113We will rely on that lant’s second trial, review of the facts.
Diane Kumph was abducted from her Lubbock apartment shortly before dawn on July 31, 1977. Later that day, her partially nude body was discovered beside a dirt road outside of Lubbock, near appellant’s house. It appeared Kumph had been raped. She had been severely beaten. Her neck, face, arms, chest, back and legs were covered with bruises. Her throat had been slashed. This caused her death.
A policeman who responded to a neighbor’s report testified that it appeared that the front door of Kumph’s apartment had been kicked open. There were indications that a violent struggle had occurred in her apartment.
A fingerprint expert testified that a latent fingerprint discovered on a cigarette package found in the victim’s bed belonged to appellant. The brand was the same brand as a pack found on appellant at the time of the arrest. Blood found on appellant’s boots matched Kumph’s blood type. Secretor analysis showed that the individual whose semen was found in Kumph was a secretor and had the same type 0 blood as did appellant. An expert testified that hairs found on Kumph’s body were similar to appellant’s and marks found on the door of Kumph’s apartment were very similar to the heel print of appellant’s boot.
A person living in the adjoining apartment testified that he was awakened in the early morning, went outside, and saw a man matching appellant’s physical description driving away in a white pickup. A woman was slumped over in the seat. The truck was missing a hubcap from the right rear wheel. Appellant, at the time of the murder, had use of a white pickup that was missing a hubcap from the right rear wheel. Appellant was identified by an acquaintance as having been in this truck, driving in Lubbock at approximately 5:00 a.m. on the morning of Kumph’s abduction.
Another resident of the adjoining apartment testified that she was awakened that morning by loud banging, and screams of ‘help me’ and ‘get off me’ coming from Kumph’s apartment.
Appellant’s roommate, Carrol Johnson, testified that she had been at work all night the night of the murder. When she returned home that morning, about 7:30 a.m., appellant was not home, but there was fresh blood all about the house. Shortly after her return, appellant phoned Johnson and said he was doing some laundry at a laundromat. He arrived at the house a half hour later with a bedspread and sheets he had washed. He burned a throw rug. Later that day, as Johnson and appellant were discussing radio reports of the murder of Kumph and the search for a suspect, appellant admitted to Johnson: ‘Baby, I’ve got to tell you something — I’m the one they’re looking for.’
More incriminating evidence was seized in a search of appellant’s house and the white truck. Leaves found on Kumph’s face were very similar to leaves found in the truck, according to expert testimony. Hair taken from the truck was very similar to Kumph’s, according to the expert. Sweepings from appellant’s apartment revealed hair that was very similar to Kumph’s, according to more expert testimony. Blood found throughout appellant’s home matched Kumph’s blood type, including that found on a blood soaked mattress. Blood was also found on the porch and on the exterior of appellant’s house. That blood matched Kumph’s type. Blood was found on a knife located in the house. Blood found on the pickup matched the deceased’s type. Lackey, supra, 638 S.W.2d at 439-440.
In his first and second points of error, the appellant disputes whether the evidence at trial proved that he committed the burglary of Kumph’s apartment with the specific intent to commit aggravated rape. In the first point appellant states that it was error for the trial court to overrule his motion for instructed verdict, which was based on the State’s alleged failure to prove his intent to commit aggravated rape. The second point of error states the *114evidence was insufficient to prove he committed burglary with the intent to commit aggravated rape. We will group the two points together. If the evidence was sufficient, the trial court was correct in overruling the appellant’s motion for an instructed verdict.
The attorney for the State argued against the motion, relying upon the evidence introduced during the State’s case in chief. He recounted for the trial court that the victim’s apartment door had been kicked open and left ajar, and that the bootprint on the door came from the appellant’s boot. The State’s attorney discussed how the apartment had not been ransacked and the victim’s purse had not been disturbed, implying that the motive for the entry was not to steal or rob. He stated that the victim’s bedroom was in disarray, as if there had been a struggle, and that the appellant’s fingerprints were found on a cigarette package left behind in the victim’s bed. He then talked about the presence of spermatozoa in the acid phosphate test run on the victim, and that it was of the appellant’s type. He also mentioned the discovery of foreign hairs found on the body of the victim, one on her mouth and the other in her pubic area; and that the hairs had been identified by experts as similar to the appellant’s hair.
The attorney for the appellant countered the arguments of the State by stating that the evidence showed the rape did not occur in the victim’s apartment, if there had been a rape. He made the suggestion that a rape did not occur by relying on the absence of trauma in the region of the victim’s vagina. The State responded to this last statement by telling the trial court that there did not have to be vaginal trauma for there to have been a rape. The trial court overruled appellant’s motion.
There was other evidence at trial, not recounted by the district attorney in his argument on the motion, which reflected on the intent of the appellant when he committed the burglary. One of the residents of the apartment adjoining the victim’s apartment recalled the screams from the victim’s apartment at the time of the break-in (“Help me” and “Get off me”). Aside from the disarray in the victim’s bedroom, there was evidence that there appeared to have been a violent struggle in the apartment, even though nothing was stolen.
The proper standard of review on this question of the sufficiency of the evidence was set out in Jackson v. Virginia: that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). In the instant case, we must, after reviewing the evidence as it was already weighted by the jury’s verdict, resolve whether any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant broke into the victim’s apartment with the intent to commit aggravated rape.
The intent to commit rape in a case of burglary may be inferred from the facts of the offense which were adduced and presented at trial. Prescott v. State, 610 S.W.2d 760 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ford v. State, 632 S.W.2d 151 (Tex.Cr.App.1982); Williams v. State, 699 S.W.2d 368 (Tex.App. [1st] 1985); and McGee v. State, 725 S.W.2d 362 (Tex.App. [14th] 1987). It is especially reasonable to make this inference when there is no evidence adduced at trial which rebuts the inference. Ortega v. State, 626 S.W.2d 746 (Tex.Cr.App.1982) and Prescott, supra.
The facts of the instant case which were proven by the State at trial showed that appellant savagely broke into the victim’s apartment, declined to steal anything there, seized the victim in spite of her screams of protest, beat the victim up and removed her to his own residence, and killed her there with a large blade knife. The physical evidence showed the presence in the victim’s vagina of spermatozoa which was tied to the blood type and secretor status of the appellant. Hairs from the appellant were found in the victim’s mouth and vaginal *115region. This physical evidence implied that appellant forced the victim to submit to sexual intercourse with him during this criminal episode. The appellant, during the guilt stage of his trial, did not offer any evidence to rebut this.
We find from the facts of the instant case that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had the requisite intent to commit aggravated rape when he broke into the victim’s apartment. The trial court properly overruled the appellant’s motion for instructed verdict. There was sufficient evidence of appellant’s intent. Points of error one and two are overruled.
In his sixth point of error, appellant asserts the evidence was insufficient to support an affirmative finding to special issue number two during the penalty stage of his trial. Appellant argues that the jury erred when it found there was a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that constitute a continuing threat to society.
Both the State and appellant introduced evidence at the penalty stage of the trial, though the appellant chose not to testify. The State proved that appellant was first convicted of a felony on September 6, 1973, when he was convicted of burglary and placed on felony probation. The State also showed the jury that appellant was convicted on January 9, 1975, of the felony offense of burglary with intent to commit rape from an incident at the habitation of Ms. Rita Featherston on June 7, 1974. His previous felony probation was revoked on January 9, 1975, based upon the burglary with intent to commit rape charge. Appellant was sentenced to two concurrent five year sentences to be served in the Texas Department of Corrections.
The State also relied on the facts of the crime itself. The appellant in the instant case was a stranger to the victim, who he apparently chose at random when he kicked open the door to her apartment in the pre-dawn hours of July 31, 1977. The offense began there and continued across town in Lubbock to his residence where he ultimately killed the victim. In addition to the knife wound from ear to ear across her neck, the victim’s body bore evidence of trauma from severe beatings. These facts reflect a crime that was not only senseless, but was also an incident of prolonged brutality and repeated violent assaults.
After the commission of the instant offense, appellant dumped the body of the victim on a farmer’s property and made a hurried attempt to conceal the evidence of the offense, even going so far as to rush clothes and sheets to the laundry to clean them of blood. This behavior indicates a lack of remorse by the appellant for his actions. It also shows an attempt to destroy evidence of his actions and to evade prosecution.
Appellant then presented his case to the jury at punishment. He first called his mother to the stand to testify. She told the jury that during appellant’s childhood, he was physically abused by his father. His father also physically abused his mother during appellant’s childhood. Appellant’s mother also explained that appellant dropped out of school during the tenth grade.
Appellant also called Dr. Herbert Modlin, a psychiatrist and expert witness, to testify. Dr. Modlin expressed skepticism that a propensity for future acts of violence could be predicted in any case. He explained that he reviewed the records of appellant’s prior psychiatric treatment and interviewed the appellant for one horn* on two separate occasions.
Dr. Modlin stated that he was not able to resolve the incompatibility between the type of personality which he found in appellant and the actual facts of this crime. Modlin explained that appellant could not recall the facts of the instant offense during their interviews. Modlin attributed this to his conclusion that appellant was drunk to the point of blacking out during the entire episode. Dr. Modlin gave his professional opinion that it was not likely that appellant would commit future acts of violence that constitute a threat to society.
In rebuttal, the State recalled Betty Edge to testify. During the guilt stage of the trial, Edge testified she had been with *116appellant until the hours just before dawn on July 31st. She stated that appellant was intoxicated when they left a nightclub at 2:00 a.m. But, she explained that they drank a small amount of alcohol after that. When Edge last saw appellant around 5:00 a.m., she said he was not drunk.
In resolving whether the evidence supports the jury’s affirmative answer to the second special issue, we must review that evidence in the light most favorable to that verdict. If any rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant would probably commit criminal acts that constitute a continuing threat to society, the jury’s verdict must stand. Jackson v. Virginia, supra; and Moreno, supra. The jury’s verdict should be reversed only if we find it to be irrational or unsupported by more than a “mere modicum” of evidence. Moreno, supra.
We begin by considering the evidence admitted during the guilt stage of the trial. The facts proven during the first stage were properly before the jury at the punishment stage. . These facts alone can often be sufficient to support affirmative findings to the special issues in the verdict at the penalty stage of a capital murder trial. Russell v. State, 665 S.W.2d 771 (Tex.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1073, 104 S.Ct. 1428, 79 L.Ed.2d 752 (1984). Carter v. State, 717 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Cr.App.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 970, 108 S.Ct. 467, 98 L.Ed.2d 407 (1987); Drew v. State, 743 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Cr.App.1987).
We have already reviewed the facts of the instant case. Appellant’s actions during the commission of this crime were senseless, savage and cruel. His actions following the murder of the victim show a lack of remorse for the victim and an absence of regret for his actions. Those actions indicate only a desire to evade discovery and protect himself from the consequences of his actions.
At the punishment stage, the State proved appellant had been convicted of felonies before. While it is true that a burglary is not necessarily a crime of violence, and that the State did not prove the facts of the appellant's prior felonies, the record before the jury was sufficient to indicate a growing propensity for violent behavior by appellant and that he would constitute a continuing threat to society. In 1973, appellant was placed on felony probation for burglary. In 1975, appellant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit rape, for which his probation was revoked. In the summer of 1977 he burglarized the home of this victim with the intent to commit aggravated rape. He then raped and murdered the victim.
Appellant attempted to counter this evidence with the testimony of Dr. Modlin that, in his professional opinion, it was not probable that appellant would commit criminal acts of violence. He was the only mental health professional to testify during the penalty stage. The State did not offer an expert opinion to contradict Dr. Modlin. However, the mere fact that Dr. Modlin was the only expert to testify does not close discussion of this issue in favor of the appellant.
The jury was the trier of fact in the instant case and, as such, the jury was the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Marroquin v. State, 746 S.W.2d 747 (Tex.Cr.App.1988). The jury can accept or reject any part of a witness’ testimony. Lafoon v. State, 543 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
In the instant case, the testimony of Dr. Modlin did not go unchallenged. The State admitted testimony that appellant was not drunk immediately prior to the commission of this offense, as the appellant led Dr. Modlin to believe. As part of that story, appellant told Dr. Modlin he could not recall the facts of the crime. On cross-examination, the following exchange occurred between the attorney for the State and Dr. Modlin:
Q. (State) Would it surprise you to learn that he had memory of it (the crime) before on August 3, 1977?
A. Yes, it would.
Q. That he remembered it in detail?
*117A. Yeah.1
Lastly, during argument to the jury, the attorney for the State pointed out that appellant misled Dr. Modlin. Appellant told Modlin that he told his girlfriend, “I wonder if they are looking for me?” Appellant’s girlfriend testified that appellant told her on the evening of the murder that, “I’m the one they are looking for.”
From their verdict, it is apparent the jury doubted the credibility of the testimony of Dr. Modlin. The record indicates there was a rational and sufficient justification for that doubt.
The record also reveals there was more than a mere modicum of evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We find that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt appellant would probably commit criminal acts that constitute a continuing threat to society. Point of error six is overruled.
In point of error three, appellant complains of the denial of his request for a special jury instruction at the guilt stage of his trial. The appellant’s special requested instruction concerned the burden of proof:
1.
The law recognizes three distinct burdens of proof:
Proof by a preponderance of the evidence which is defined as that degree of proof that, when taken as a whole, shows that a fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Proof by clear and convincing evidence which is defined as that degree of proof which will produce in the jury’s mind a firm belief as to the truth of the allegation sought to be established. This is an intermediate standard, falling between the preponderance of the evidence standard and the reasonable doubt standard.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is defined as that degree of proof that will erase in the mind of the jury the kind of doubt that would make a person hesitate to act in the conduct of their more serious and important personal affairs.
The trial court refused to place this instruction in its charge to the jury. Instead, the trial court used a more common instruction on the burden of proof:
In all criminal cases the burden of proof is upon the State. The defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt; and if you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt, you will acquit him and say by your verdict “not guilty.”
Appellant provides us with no authority to support his requested instruction on the burden of proof. Instead, the appellant discusses the view that a jury in a capital murder trial must be narrowly guided during the penalty stage, citing “Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 [96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944] (1976); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978); and, Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 102 S.Ct. 869, 71 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982).” Appellant then asserts that a corollary of this rule would “apply to the trial on guilt or innocence as well.” No authority was given to support this assertion. Also, appellant failed to explain how his requested instruction, which juxtaposed a definition of the standard of “reasonable doubt” with two other standards of proof, would accomplish his goal of providing extra guidance to a capital jury. Lastly, appellant does not justify or support the definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt” which he included in his requested instruction.
The constitutionally required burden of proof in criminal cases is that the State establish all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Crocker v. State, 573 S.W.2d 190 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) (on rehearing); and Hankins v. State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). In the instant case, the trial court’s instruction on *118the burden of proof complied with this requirement. The trial court’s instruction was not erroneous.
If appellant was attempting, by his requested instruction, to argue that the trial court should have specifically defined the term “reasonable doubt”, we reject this argument. The legislature has not defined the term “reasonable doubt”. Because the term has not been defined by statute, the term is to be understood in its usual acceptance in common language and need not be defined in the charge to the jury.2 Art. 3.01, Y.A.C.C.P. Appellant has not demonstrated a need to define the term “reasonable doubt”. The instruction which he requested would probably confuse a jury in its deliberations more than it would help the jury. Point of error three is overruled.
In point of error four, appellant states the trial court erred when it rejected his requested charge on mitigation. At trial, appellant objected to the trial court’s failure to include in its charge to the jury his “special requested charge” which he submitted in writing to the court. That requested charge reads as follows:
You are instructed that during this phase of the trial, you must consider whatever mitigating circumstances the Defendant has been able to show, if any, in order to answer the special issue which will be submitted to you on that matter.
You are instructed that the law recognizes the existence of certain facts or circumstances which, though not justifying or excusing the offense, may properly be considered in determining whether to impose the death sentence. Such circumstances, in fairness and mercy, may be considered by you as extenuating or reducing the degree of moral culpability of the Defendant, so that it may be appropriate to reduce, diminish, or lessen the punishment to be imposed, because of such mitigating circumstances. Such mitigating circumstances given you, as jurors, the option to recommend against the penalty of death by the answer that you make to the special issue on this matter.
Under our law, you cannot be precluded from considering as a mitigating factor any aspect of a Defendant’s character or record or background that the Defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.
In this case, the Defendant, CLARENCE ALLEN LACKEY, has proffered the following matters as evidence of mitigating facts or circumstances: (1) Voluntary intoxication at the time of the offense, (2) a turbulent relationship with his father, (3) lack of education, (4) and the youthful age of Defendant.
You are instructed to consider such matters for whatever weight you desire to give them, if any, as mitigating circumstances in the present case. After you have considered them, you will answer a Special Issue on this matter. As I have already instructed you, the burden of proof in this phase of the trial still rests upon the State, and never shifts to the Defendant. Each Special Issue, including the Special Issue on mitigating circumstances, must be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt before you can answer it “Yes.” Therefore, before you answer this Special Issue “Yes”, all jurors must be convinced by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to such issue should be “Yes.”
Appellant, as part of the written instruction, requested that a third special issue be included in the charge:
Having in mind and following these instructions, you will now answer the following special issue:
Do you find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the mitigating circumstances proffered by the Defendant, fail to constitute an adequate basis *119for reducing the punishment of the Defendant from death to a lesser punishment?
If you unanimously find from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the mitigating circumstances proffered by the Defendant fail to constitute an adequate basis for reducing the punishment of the Defendant from death to a lesser punishment, you will answer this question “Yes.”
However, if ten (10) or more of you agree that a reasonable doubt exists as to whether the mitigating circumstances proffered by the Defendant fail to constitute an adequate basis for reducing the punishment of the Defendant from death to a lesser punishment, you will answer this question “No.”
ANSWER: _
If you have answered the above issue “No,” and the vote is less than unanimous, and in that event only, the jurors voting “No” must sign their names below:
After overruling appellant’s objections, the trial court gave its charge to the jury. In that charge, the trial court instructed the jury on the evidence before it at the penalty stage as follows:
You are further instructed that in determining each of these Special Issues you may take into consideration all of the evidence submitted to you in the full trial of this case, that is, all of the evidence submitted to you in the first part of this case wherein you were called upon to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and all of the evidence, if any, admitted before you in the second part of the trial wherein you were called upon to determine the answers to Special Issues hereby submitted to you.
The trial court gave the jury the special issues set out in Art. 37.071(b)(1) and (2), V.A.C.C.P.
Appellant argues that his requested instruction and special issue should have been given to the jury as a part of the trial court’s charge. Relying on Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978), he states that a capital sentencing statute could not preclude the consideration of mitigating evidence. He then asserts that the need for carefully detailed instructions for consideration of penalty stage evidence has been repeatedly voiced in cases emanating from the middle and northern federal districts of Georgia.3 However, these Circuit Court decisions are not controlling in the appellate courts of this State.
If the appellant implies by this argument that Art. 37.071 is unconstitutional because it does not provide a carefully detailed instruction on consideration of mitigating evidence such as the one he offered at trial, and because the absence of such an instruction precludes the consideration of mitigating evidence, we note that this argument has been resolved adversely to appellant. Recently, the Supreme Court stated:
It is the established Texas practice to permit jury consideration of “whatever mitigating circumstances the defendant might be able to show” in capital sentencing — a practice which this Court relied upon when it concluded in Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 [98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973] (1978), that our decision in that case did not require reversal of our earlier approval of the Texas Special Issue scheme in Jurek [v. State, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976)]. Lockett v. Ohio, supra, [438 U.S.] at 606-607 [98 S.Ct. at 2965-2966] (opinion on Burger, C.J.). In the decade which has followed, the Texas courts have expressed resolute adherence to Lockett, declaring that under Texas’ capital sentencing procedures the defense is free to ask “the jury ... to consider whatever evidence of mitigating circumstances the defense can bring before it. Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933, 947 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). Franklin v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 164, 108 S.Ct. 2320, 101 L.Ed.2d 155 (1988).
*120Contrary to appellant’s argument, the Texas statute is constitutional precisely because it does allow for consideration of mitigating evidence.
Simply put, we have previously recognized that the Texas Special Issues adequately “allow the jury to consider the mitigating aspects of the crime and the unique characteristics of the perpetrator, and therefore sufficiently provide for jury discretion.” See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 245, 108 S.Ct. 546, 555, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988). We adhere to this prior conclusion. Franklin v. Lynaugh, supra (opinion of White, J.).
Appellant also argues in this point of error that the capricious application of the statute in the instant case was unconstitutional. Appellant states that this Court should require an instruction on mitigating evidence like his because death is a punishment different from all other sanctions. This difference requires additional and more detailed instruction. Even if our statute does not preclude consideration of mitigating evidence, according to appellant, insufficient guidance of the jury in the instant case renders the imposition of the death penalty unconstitutional.
We disagree with appellant’s assertion that the law was capriciously applied by the trial court. Appellant freely presented his mitigating evidence at the penalty stage of the trial. The trial court’s instruction to the jury provided sufficient guidance for them to conscientiously consider that evidence in the context of the special issues given to them at trial.4 Point of error four is overruled.
In point of error five appellant states the Texas death penalty statute prohibits the type of individualized consideration of mitigating factors required by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This appears to be somewhat of a repeat of point of error four. Appellant states that “a great deal of evidence which could and should be considered in mitigation would not be relevant to special issue number two.” Appellant then, again, relies on Lockett v. Ohio, supra, when he asserts that the prohibition of the consideration of mitigating circumstances is unconstitutional. Appellant argues that Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P., prevents a capital jury from considering mitigating evidence, and, therefore, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Appellant explains that the unconstitutionality of the statute is evident from repeated instances where the suppression of some mitigating evidence has been upheld. In Hovila v. State, 562 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), appellant states this Court upheld the exclusion of evidence because it was not relevant to the Special Issues. Appellant also cites Duffy v. State, 567 S.W.2d 197 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Demouchette v. State, 591 S.W.2d 488 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); and Russell v. State, 598 S.W.2d 238 (Tex.Cr.App.1980) as being similar to Hovila. He claims they demonstrate that exclusion of some mitigating evidence from consideration constitutes a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Initially, we note that appellant does not argue, nor does the record show, that any mitigating evidence which he had to offer at trial was excluded. In the instant case the issue of suppression of mitigating evidence at the penalty stage of a capital murder trial is not before this Court.
We also disagree with his argument that Art. 37.071 prevents a jury from considering evidence in mitigation brought forward by the appellant at trial. Lockett v. Ohio, supra, 98 S.Ct. at 606-607; and Franklin v. Lynaugh, supra. As such, it does not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Appellant’s fifth point of error is overruled.
*121In his seventh point of error, appellant argues that the Texas death penalty statute provides for a capricious imposition of the death penalty because the probability of future dangerousness is impossible to predict. Appellant states this violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
In his brief, appellant explains his argument. He refers to Dr. Modlin, who testified at trial that it would be nearly impossible to predict if an individual would commit future crimes of violence. Appellant also relies on the opinions of experts in the fields of psychiatry and psychology who agree with Dr. Modlin. Appellant argues that a jury of laymen, without the training and experience of experts, are not competent to make this determination of future dangerousness. Therefore, appellant states the imposition of the death penalty based upon this determination constitutes a capricious “infliction” of the death penalty and is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court has previously rejected this argument in Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262, 96 S.Ct. 2950, 49 L.Ed.2d 929 (1976),
It is, of course, not easy to predict future behavior. The fact that such a determination is difficult, however, does not mean that it cannot be made. Indeed, prediction of future criminal conduct is an essential element in many of the decisions rendered throughout our criminal justice system_ What is essential is that the jury have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine. Texas law clearly assures that all such evidence will be adduced. Jurek, supra, 96 S.Ct. at 2957-2958.
This Court, relying on Jurek, has also rejected the argument that Art. 37.071, V.A.C.C.P., is unconstitutional because future dangerousness is difficult to predict. Smith v. State, 683 S.W.2d 393 (Tex.Cr.App.1984) (reh. denied 1985).
Appellant advances nothing new in his point of error that would justify overturning these precedents. Appellant cites no authority to support this point of error. Point of error number seven is overruled.
In his eighth point of error, appellant claims that the terms in Art. 37.071(b)(2) are unconstitutionally vague. Appellant states that to sentence him to death under this statute constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment as proscribed by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Appellant directly complains of the vagueness of the following four terms: “probability”; “criminal acts of violence”; “continuing threat”; and “society”. None of these terms are defined in the Penal Code or the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appellant attempts to establish that these terms are both confusing for jurors and difficult to apply by relying on past cases where people have expressed their problems in dealing with these terms.5 However, appellant does not attempt to show that the jury in the instant case expressed any confusion about the four terms. Appellant also does not cite any authority in support of this point of error.
In Jurek v. Texas, supra, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that Art. 37.071(b)(2), V.A.C.C.P., was unconstitutionally vague. In King v. State, 553 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), this Court held that a trial court was not required to specifically define “probability”, “criminal acts of violence”, and “continuing threat to society” in its charge at the penalty stage of a capital murder trial. These terms are not specifically defined by statute. As a result, they are to be taken and understood in “their usual acceptation in common language.” King, supra, 553 S.W.2d at 107; *122Art. 3.01, V.A.C.C.P. This decision was cited with approval in Sanne v. State, 609 S.W.2d 762, at 775 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), and DeLuna v. State, 711 S.W.2d 44 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). Appellant’s eighth point of error is overruled.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
DUNCAN, J., not participating.. The trial court would not permit the State to go into any specific details of the appellant's oral confession to the police on August 3, 1977. The trial court ruled that only the fact that appellant recalled the events of the crime four days afterwards was relevant.
. This Court has made the same ruling in dealing with requests for an instruction to define the terms “continuing threat to society" and “criminal act of violence" in the jury instructions at the penalty stage of a capital murder trial. King v. State, 553 S.W.2d 105 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1088, 98 S.Ct. 1284, 55 L.Ed.2d 793 (1978). See point of error eight.
. Spivey v. Zant, 661 F.2d 464 (5th Cir.1981) (reh. and reh. en banc denied, 1982); Chenault v. Stynchcombe, 581 F.2d 444, 448 (5th Cir.1978); Westbrook v. Zant, 704 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir.1983); Finney v. Zant, 709 F.2d 643 (11th Cir.1983).
. The opinion in Franklin v. Lynaugh reached a similar conclusion:
Because we do not believe that the jury instructions or the Texas Special Issues precluded jury consideration of any relevant mitigating circumstances in this case, or otherwise unconstitutionally limited the jury’s discretion here, we reject petitioner’s Eighth Amendment challenge to his death sentence. Franklin v. Lynaugh, supra (opinion by White, J.).
. In Shippy v. State, 556 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), a psychiatrist witness was unable to specifically define "probability". In Muniz v. State, 573 S.W.2d 792 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), the jury sent out a question requesting a definition of "probability". In Livingston v. State, 542 S.W.2d 655 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), a jury sent out a question requesting a definition of "criminal acts of violence”.
None of these cases cited by appellant held that Art. 37.071 was unconstitutionally vague.