bad acts committed before and bad acts committed after the charged offense”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 940, 118 S.Ct. 355, 139 L.Ed.2d 276 (1997); U.S. v. Olivo, 80 F.3d 1466, 1468 (10th Cir.1996) (same). Although these federal court decisions are not binding, when a Texas Rule of Evidence duplicates a Federal Rule of Evidence, as here, greater-than-usual deference should be given to the federal courts’ interpretations of the federal rule. Tamez v. State, 11 S.W.3d 198, 201 (Tex.Crim.App.2000). The trial court, by overruling Russell’s objection that the Vogt Street offense was inadmissible because it occurred after the Fast Freddy’s offense, acted in accordance with the persuasive legal authorities presented to it. See also Santellan v. State, 939 S.W.2d 155, 168 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (<HOLDING>); Torres v. State, 794 S.W.2d 596, 599
holding extraneous acts of touching of complainant and her friend were admissible in indecency with a child prosecution because defendants charged conduct was as consistent with accident as with a specific lascivious intent holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment holding extraneous conduct subsequent to the charged offense admissible holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense 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