improper motive. See Box v. State, No. 14-02001217-CR, 2004 WL 1091891, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (not designated for publication); Sanchez v. State, No. 05-00-01680, 2002 WL 338770, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2002, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). 4 . See Tex.Code Crim. Proc Ann. art. 38.072 (Vernon Supp.2004) (providing for the admissibility of certain hearsay statements made by victimized child in a prosecution f of Appeals in unpublished opinions have extended Huizar’s holding to require the trial court to give the reasonable-doubt instruction for extraneous offenses during the guilt-innocence phase. See Chapa v. State, No. 04-02-00346-CR, 2003 WL 1025148 at *1-*2 (Tex.App.-San Antonio March 12, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Arnold, v. State, No. 05-01-01733-CR, 2002 WL
holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding egregious harm standard applied where appellant failed to object to lack of instruction on accomplice witness testimony holding that moores prior convictions were not admissible to show motive because there was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead to an inference that moore because he committed these prior acts  was motivated to commit the nowcharged crime holding that chapa did not suffer egregious harm from trial courts failure to provide reasonabledoubt instruction because chapa admitted to prior offenses therefore there were no contested issues regarding capas prior criminal record or bad acts