With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". intent in the capital murder of Chapa. The record before us contains ample evidence, as well as the S & A extraneous offense, to prove Russell’s specific intent to kill Chapa. For these reasons, we cannot agree with the State’s contention that the Vogt Street offense was relevant to prove Russell’s intent by virtue of the application of the doctrine of chances. Nonetheless, deferring as we must to the trial court’s reliance on its own observations and experience in making a Rule 404(b) relevancy determination, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by concluding that the Vogt Street offense bore some relevance to the issue of Russell’s specific intent in the capital murder of Chapa. See, e.g., Bradshaw v. State, 65 S.W.3d 232, 237 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The court’s charge authorized the jury to

A: holding defendants extraneous acts of nonpayment for goods and services were admissible in prosecution for theft of service because defendants intent could not be inferred from his nonpayment in the charged offense
B: holding extraneous conduct subsequent to the charged offense admissible
C: holding evidence of virtually identical offense was relevant to show intent among other things in trial of charged offense
D: holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense
D.