OPINION

Appellant was convicted by a jury for aggravated robbery. The jury found that appellant had been twice previously convicted of felonies and the coürt assessed appellant’s punishment at life pursuant to V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 12.42(d).

The only contention raised in this appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to quash the jury panel. In his argument under this ground of error appellant complains that during the course of the State’s voir dire examination of the jury panel, the prosecuting attorney fully and elaborately discussed the law of insanity as a defense to a criminal act. Appellant contends that, because he had not filed a notice of his intention to offer evidence as to insanity as ; a defense,1 the prosecutor’s discussion of ■ the same during voir dire examination of the jury panel unduly prejudiced the panel.

The transcription of the court reporter’s notes consists only of excerpts from the void dire examination of the jury panel. The motion to quash the panel was overruled.

Even if there is no notice of an intention to rely on insanity as a defense *408found in the record under Article 46.03, Section 2(a), V.A.C.C.P., a trial court may still permit the admission of such evidence under Article 46.03, Section 2(b), V.A.C.C.P. This apparently happened in the instant case. Appellant requested, and the court gave, a charge on the law of insanity as a defense. We find no error in the prosecutor’s anticipating appellant’s defense and discussing same with the prospective jurors in order to challenge individual members for cause or in order to exercise his peremptory challenges.2

No error is shown; the judgment is affirmed.