With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the defendant committed the extraneous offenses. Mann, 13 S.W.3d at 94; see Mitchell, 931 S.W.2d at 954. This threshold determination is not a finding by the court that the State has proved an extraneous bad act beyond a reasonable doubt, but is instead a finding that sufficient evidence exists from which a jury could reasonably so find. See Mann, 13 S.W.3d at 94. Significant to the issue before us, there is no requirement that this initial determination be made by the court following a hearing as opposed to some other form of preliminary review. Mann, 13 S.W.3d at 94. The trial court may determine whether there is sufficient evidence through an oral or written proffer of evidence, motions, pretrial hearings, and the trial, including any bench conferences. See Mann, 13 S.W.3d at 93-95 (<HOLDING>); Welch v. State, 993 S.W.2d 690, 697

A: holding that the prosecutors statement that he intended to offer extraneous offense evidence through defendants exwife who would testify as to some physical abuse by defendant was sufficient for purposes of making a threshold determination of relevance
B: holding error harmless where judge heard no details of the extraneous offense and stated that he considered it only as evidence that defendant was not in college at the time
C: holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify
D: holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify
A.