With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". cert. denied, 519 U.S. 951, 117 S.Ct. 364, 136 L.Ed.2d 255 (1996). That is, “to be admissible to show identity, an extraneous offense must be so similar to the charged offense as to mark the offenses as the defendant’s handiwork.” Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644, 650-51 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (emphasis added). We have located no case law authority for the proposition that a defendant’s association with another to commit prior and subsequent offenses makes his identity as the perpetrator of the present offense along with the other person more probable. The Vogt Street offense raises only a suspicion as to identity in the Fast Freddy’s offense that culminates from the association of Barnes and Russell. Accord Wincott v. State, 59 S.W.3d 691, 700-01 (Tex.App.-Austin 2001, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). “[G]uilt by association [is] one of the most

A: holding jury cannot return any verdict except acquittal when evidence is insufficient to corroborate accomplice witness
B: holding suspicion that some combination of individuals participated in five robberies was insufficient to corroborate accomplice testimony
C: recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony
D: holding possession alone cannot sufficiently corroborate the testimony of an accomplice when the stolen property was not sufficiently identified at trial
B.