With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (Tex.Crim.App.1989). See Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 820, 823-24 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. refd) (applying harmless error rule to analyze erroneous admission of extraneous offense at punishment stage). The nature of the error was the admission of inadmissible evidence of an unadjudicated extraneous offense highly similar to the charged offense. In light of that similarity, we cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that this error made no contribution to the appellant’s punishment— notwithstanding that the State did not emphasize the erroneously admitted evidence (and indeed made no argument at all at the punishment phase), and notwithstanding our belief that holding this error harmless will not tend to encourage its repetition. Compare Johnson, 871 S.W.2d at 824 (<HOLDING>). We have recently held that reversal was

A: holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction
B: holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error
C: holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
D: 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
D.