intent by multiplying instances of the same result until it is perceived that this element cannot explain them all. Without formulating any accurate test, and without attempting by numerous instances to secure absolute certainty of inference, the mind applies this rough and instinctive process of reasoning, namely, that an unusual and abnormal element might perhaps be present in one instance, but that the oftener similar instances occur with similar results, the less likely is the abnormal element likely to b ort the admissibility of the Vogt Street offense in the present ease. In Morgan, Plante, and Keller, each defendant either raised the issue of accident' or mistake, or the defendant’s conduct was as consistent with accident as with a specific intent. See Morgan, 692 S.W.2d at 881 (<HOLDING>); Plante, 692 S.W.2d at 490, 492-94 (holding
holding evidence of extraneous acts  that father walked around nude with erection in front of children  was relevant to issue of intent in fathers prosecution for indecency with a child although probative value of such evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect 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 extraneous conduct subsequent to the charged offense admissible holding that indecency with a child by contact is lesserincluded offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child because even though the latter offense did not include intent as an express element lascivious intent was implicitly included holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense