he was okay with it.” Edwards later testified that Russell told him that he shot the deceased Vogt Street victim “[b]e- cause she was screaming,” and that when he asked Russell how he could do that kind of thing, Russell responded that “[a]fter you kill so many people, it doesn’t matter no more.” DNA evidence corroborated Edwards’s testimony. Although no DNA evidence linked Russell to the Vogt Street offense, DNA evidence did link Barnes, Hill, and Wright to the offense. Thus, the evidence at trial did tend to connect Russell to the Vogt Street offense, specifically as one of the shooters along with Barnes. This evidence serves to make the issue of Russell’s intent in the Fast Freddy’s offense slightly more probable, weighing in favor of its admission. See Montgomery, 810 S.W.2d at 394 (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, conclude that the first
holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect holding extraneous acts relevant to show intent in charged offense 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 the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution 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