the true explanation of them. Morgan, 692 S.W.2d at 881 (citations omitted). The Morgan court then concluded, “Before an extraneous offense is admissible to negate the possibility of accident under Wigmore’s doctrine of chances, such offense must be sufficiently similar in nature to the charged offense that the inference of improbability of accident logically comes into play.” Id. Thus, when the defendant raises the issue of accident or mistake, extraneous offense or bad acts evidence may be admissible under the doctrine of chances because it tends to make an accident or mistake less probable and tends to make the fact that the defendant intended the act more probable. Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 386-87; see also Dowler v. State, 777 S.W.2d 444, 447-48 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1989, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). The doctrine of chances, however, does not
holding lead paint poisoning covered by the pollution exclusion holding that indictment for murder in the first degree charges murder by whatever means it may have been committed regardless of the theory of murder presented to the grand jury holding extraneous offenses of murder by cyanide poisoning relevant to charge of murder by chloroform poisoning holding single incident of food poisoning did not amount to a violation of prisoners constitutional rights holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder