OPINION
JANE BLAND, Justice.
Appellant Rashik Ali Taylor pleaded not guilty to the first-degree felony offense of aggravated sexual assault. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (Vernon Supp.2006). A jury found Taylor guilty and assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement. In two issues, Taylor contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony, and (2) the trial court erred in denying his request for an extraneous offense instruction in the jury charge. We conclude that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the hearsay testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4), and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Taylor’s request for an extraneous offense instruction in the jury charge because the extraneous offenses in this case constitute same transaction contextual evidence. We therefore affirm.
Background
On the night of March 27, 2005, J.B. was staying at a hotel with her mother and an ex-boyfriend of her aunt known as “Uncle Lazy.” J.B. was thirteen years old at the time. Mom, Lazy, and J.B. began drinking a bottle of Mad Dog wine that Mom had purchased earlier that night.1 Mom then began suffering drug withdrawal symptoms. Lazy and J.B. drove Mom to an apartment complex so that she could work as a prostitute and earn money to buy drugs. Lazy and J.B. returned the van they were using to its owner and went back to their hotel room where Lazy’s friend Freddie joined them.
A short time later, Mom called J.B. and informed her that William Zapata, an ex-boyfriend, had kidnapped her and that she needed J.B. to call “Skinny Man” to pick her up. J.B. identified “Skinny Man” at trial as Taylor, the defendant in this case. J.B. called Taylor and he agreed to come to her hotel room after he showered. J.B. used cocaine while she waited for Taylor. After Taylor arrived, he offered J.B. a line of cocaine but she declined. Taylor then told Lazy and Freddie to take his car and pick up Mom. Lazy, however, refused to leave J.B. alone with Taylor. Taylor then suggested that they should all go pick up Mom together. Freddie stayed behind in case Mom came back on her own.
As soon as Taylor and J.B. got in the car, Taylor placed his hand on J.B.’s leg but she pushed it away. Taylor, Lazy, and J.B. then drove to Taylor’s hotel room. When they arrived, Taylor told J.B. to get out and come inside because he needed help with something. Inside the hotel room, Taylor pulled out a gun from behind his bed and put it in the waistband of his pants. Taylor then sat down and told J.B. that he was going to move in with her and Mom and that he wanted to spend more time with her. Taylor and J.B. then left the hotel room. As they were leaving, Taylor saw his friend “E” and asked him to join them. Taylor, E, Lazy, and J.B. then drove to another apartment complex.
When they arrived, Taylor and E told Lazy to get out of the car. J.B. noticed that Taylor had drawn his gun so she got [308]*308out of the car as well. Taylor pointed the gun at Lazy but J.B. jumped in front of him and held onto Lazy. J.B. finally released Lazy when Taylor put the gun to her head. Taylor then put J.B. back in the car, but she climbed out of a window and ran through the apartment complex. As J.B. was running away, she heard gunshots and thought that Taylor had probably killed Lazy. J.B. noticed that Taylor was chasing her so she stopped because she did not think she could outrun him. J.B. refused to go with Taylor so he picked her up and brought her back to the car. Taylor, E, and J.B. then drove back to Taylor’s hotel room.
When they arrived at the hotel, J.B. tried to run away again but Taylor quickly caught her and brought her upstairs to his room. J.B. was hysterical when she got inside the room and she repeatedly asked Taylor and E to let her go. At one point, J.B. tried calling Lazy but Taylor grabbed her by the throat and forced her to hang up the phone. Taylor and E then went outside to talk. J.B. went to the restroom and took off her pants to clean off some mud. Taylor then opened the restroom door and told J.B. to come out. J.B. tried to put her pants back on but Taylor told her that she should feel comfortable around him. J.B. and Taylor sat down and began talking. Taylor explained that he had not killed Lazy, but instead given him his car so that he could pick up Mom. Taylor and J.B. then did a few fines of cocaine together.
Taylor then told J.B. to fie on the bed. When she refused, Taylor removed the gun from his waistband and laid it on the nightstand. Taylor then told J.B. to take off her clothes. J.B. felt threatened so she complied with Taylor’s requests. Taylor and J.B. then had intercourse twice. J.B. told Taylor to stop and tried to push him away, but she gave up when she realized that struggling would only prolong the ordeal. Afterwards, J.B. and Taylor got dressed and sat on the bed. Taylor tossed a bag of crack cocaine on J.B.’s lap and told her that it was for Mom. Taylor then drove J.B. back to her hotel where she took two Xanax and went to bed.
J.B. told Mom and Lazy about the incident the next day but they did not call the police. J.B. refused to attend school for a few days because of the incident. An official at J.B.’s school eventually called to see how she was doing. J.B. told the official that she thought Taylor might have raped her. After J.B. returned to school, she divulged the entire story and the school official called the police.
Hearsay
In his first issue, Taylor contends the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the hearsay testimony of Denise Vo-let. Volet is a licensed professional counselor who began treating J.B. in June 2005. At trial, the prosecutor asked Volet about the details that J.B. had given her concerning the sexual assault. Taylor objected on the ground that the testimony would constitute hearsay. The State responded that Volet’s testimony was admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. See Tex.R. Evid. 803(4). After the trial court overruled Taylor’s hearsay objection to Volet’s testimony, Volet testified as follows:
[Prosecutor:] What did [J.B.] tell you about what had happened?
[Volet:] She referred to the gentleman as Skinny. That’s the name that she had for him. And how basically her mother had sent her to go with him. They went to a motel. She talked about being in a car. Talked about there being a gun. She talked about going up[309]*309stairs into the room. Being afraid, knowing something wasn’t right and was going to happen. Skinny asking her to take her clothes off and her telling him she didn’t want to. And trying to resist. She talked about the gun being on the nightstand on the table. Her taking her clothes off. Getting on the bed. Skinny having sex with her. That it hurt. And she tried to get away from him and just couldn’t. Then when it was over she talked about, you know, leaving. Being in the car. At some point the gun was in her lap for some reason. And she talked about that she had the thought of I should shoot him now. She talked about doing drugs. Doing cocaine. I remember cocaine. I don’t remember exactly what it was they drank. But she had been drinking and doing drugs. Had been given those things. She remembered getting out of the car. And what’s typical of a victim of rape or abuse.
[Defense Counsel:] I object to the narrative nature of this testimony.
[Trial Court:] Sustained.
[Prosecutor:] What issues were you addressing with her regarding the rape? What was her recollection to the rape? [Volet:] Anger, number one. She was a very angry young lady. Betrayal she felt from her mother.
A. Preservation
The State asserts that Taylor’s objection to Volet’s testimony was not sufficiently specific to preserve this issue for appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 38.1(a). As a prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show that the complaint was made to the trial court by a timely request, objection, or motion that stated the grounds with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context. Id. When the State seeks to introduce testimony, it bears the burden of establishing the admissibility of such evidence. Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568, 573 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). The proponent of hearsay testimony must point to a hearsay exception before the court can admit such testimony. Perez v. State, 113 S.W.3d 819, 827 n. 4 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd). The proponent of hearsay testimony therefore has the burden of laying the proper predicate and establishing its admissibility. Id. At trial, Taylor objected to Volet’s testimony on the ground that it would constitute hearsay. Taylor asserted his hearsay objection in a timely manner and with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of his complaint. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a). The burden then passed to the State to' demonstrate the admissibility of the testimony. See Kelly, 824 S.W.2d at 573; Perez, 113 S.W.3d at 827 n. 4. The State responded that Volet’s testimony was admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule for statements made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. See Tex.R. Evid. 803(4). We therefore hold that Taylor’s hearsay objection was sufficient to preserve this issue for appeal. See Long v. State, 800 S.W.2d 545, 548 (Tex.Crim.App.1990); Carter v. State, 717 S.W.2d 60, 76 (Tex.Crim.App.1986).
B. Hearsay
We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence under an abuse of discretion standard. Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Roberts v. State, 29 S.W.3d 596, 600 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd). A reviewing court should not reverse unless the record shows a clear abuse of discretion. Zuliani 97 S.W.3d at 595; Roberts, 29 S.W.3d at 600. An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial [310]*310judge’s decision was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree. Zuliani, 97 S.W.3d at 595; Roberts, 29 S.W.3d at 600.
“ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Tex.R. Evid. 801(d). Hearsay testimony is generally inadmissible at trial. Tex.R. Evid. 802. Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “[statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” Tex.R. Evid. 803(4).
Rule 803(4) is premised on the declarant’s desire to receive an appropriate medical diagnosis or treatment, and the assumption that the declarant appreciates that the effectiveness of the diagnosis or treatment may depend on the accuracy of the information provided. See Burns v. State, 122 S.W.3d 434, 438 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. ref'd); Perez, 113 S.W.3d at 828; Moore v. State, 82 S.W.3d 399, 413 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002, pet. ref'd) (Patterson, J., concurring); Sneed v. State, 955 S.W.2d 451, 453 (Tex.App.-—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref'd); Fleming v. State, 819 S.W.2d 237, 247 (Tex.App.—Austin 1991, pet. ref'd). “Thus, the declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment.” Austin v. State, 222 S.W.3d 801, 811 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. filed); accord Jones v. State, 92 S.W.3d 619, 623 (Tex.App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); Sandoval v. State, 52 S.W.3d 851, 856 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref'd). The witness, however, does not have to expressly state that the hearsay declarant recognized the need to be truthful in her statements for the medical treatment exception to apply. Wright v. State, 154 S.W.3d 235, 241 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. ref'd). Instead, the reviewing court must look to the record to determine if it supports a conclusion that the declar-ant understood the importance of honesty in the context of medical diagnosis and treatment. See Beheler v. State, 3 S.W.3d 182, 188-89 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1999, pet. ref'd).
C. Rule 803(h) Analysis
Volet testified that she is a licensed professional counselor2 and has bachelor’s degrees in psychology and sociology, and a master’s degree in psychological counseling. She is also a certified mediator and a certified anger resolution therapist. Volet, however, is not a medical doctor or psychiatrist, nor is she under the supervision of a medical doctor or psychiatrist.
[311]*311Volet began treating J.B. in June 2005, two months after the incident with Taylor. A therapist at the Child Advocacy Center referred J.B. to Volet for treatment because of conflicts of interest at the Child Advocacy Center stemming from their work with Child Protective Services. Vo-let testified that she was working with J.B. on issues concerning the resolution of the sexual assault, the resolution of mother/daughter issues, anger management, learning how to control her own behaviors, making the right choices, and judgment decisions. Volet also testified about common characteristics exhibited by children who experienced sexual abuse and the particular characteristics that J.B. had exhibited.
J.B. testified that she was receiving therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder and bipolar disorder.
Texas appellate courts have allowed licensed professional counselors and psychotherapists to testify under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4). See Wilder v. State, 111 S.W.3d 249, 256-57 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd); Puderbaugh v. State, 31 S.W.3d 683, 685 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000, pet. ref'd); Gohring v. State, 967 S.W.2d 459, 461 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1998, no pet.). In Wilder v. State, Puderbaugh v. State, and Gohring v. State, the courts focused on the declarant’s understanding of the purpose of the therapy, and held that hearsay testimony is admissible under Rule 803(4) if the record contains evidence that the declarant understood that he or she was receiving therapy for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment. Wilder, 111 S.W.3d at 257 (“In view of the foregoing facts, we find that it is reasonable to infer that T.N.W. understood that she was receiving therapy for purposes of medical treatment in connection with the abuse and that her statements to Pruitt were made for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment.”); Puderbaugh, 31 S.W.3d at 685 (“Brouwer acknowledged that in the course of treatment in counseling C.P., it had been conveyed to C.P. that the reason for seeing him was to help her with her emotional problems. Brouwer and C.P. discussed the importance of telling the truth to him, and C.P. understood the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie.”); Gohring, 967 S.W.2d at 461 (“In the case of this witness, we hold the trial court did not err in admitting this evidence under Rule 803(4) because it would be a reasonable inference that C.G., who was a high school student, would have understood she was seeing Petite for the purpose of medical treatment in connection with the abuse, and that C.G.’s statements to Petite were made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.”).
Additionally, we look to cases interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) for guidance in interpreting Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4) because their language is identical. See Fed.R.Evid. 803(4); Tex.R.Evid. 803(4); see also Fairow v. State, 943 S.W.2d 895, 902 n. 3 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (Baird, J., concurring) (“Generally, the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence were patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence.”); Reed v. State, 811 S.W.2d 582, 586 (Tex.Crim.App.1991) (noting that federal rules guide, but do not bind, state courts construing analogous Texas rules); Montgomery v. State, 810 S.W.2d 372, 376 n. 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (stating that, when Texas rule duplicates federal rule, federal rule’s interpretation should receive greater than usual deference); Sandoval, 52 S.W.3d at 856 (“Because of the absence of Texas case law addressing the applicability of rule 803(4) to statements made by one other than the patient, we look to cases interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4), which is identical to Texas rule 803(4), for guidance.”).
[312]*312The advisory committee note to federal Rule 803(4) provides that “[u]nder the exception the statement need not have been made to a physician[;] [statements to hospital attendants, ambulance drivers, or even members of the family might be included.” Fed.R.Evid. 803(4) advisory committee’s note. Federal courts addressing this issue have consistently held that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) can apply to statements made to psychotherapists for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment, even though the therapist is not a physician or nurse. See United States v. Kappell, 418 F.3d 550, 556-57 (6th Cir.2005); Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289, 297 (1st Cir.2004); Davignon v. Clemmey, 322 F.3d 1, 8 n. 3 (1st Cir.2003); Swinton v. Potomac Corp., 270 F.3d 794, 807-08 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251, 1270 n. 28 (10th Cir.1999); United States v. Running Horse, 175 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir.1999); United States v. White, 11 F.3d 1446, 1449 (8th Cir.1993); Morgan v. Foretich, 846 F.2d 941, 949-50 (4th Cir.1988).
In contrast, in Perez v. State and Moore v. State, the Austin Court of Appeals refused to allow the hearsay testimony of licensed professional counselors under Rule 803(4). Perez, 113 S.W.3d at 830; Moore, 82 S.W.3d at 405. In these two cases, the court interpreted the Rule 803(4) phrase, “reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment,” as a requirement that the witness be part of the medical profession or otherwise qualified to render a medical diagnosis or treatment. Tex.R. Evid. 803(4); Perez, 113 S.W.3d at 828, 830; Moore, 82 S.W.3d at 404-05. We disagree with the Austin court’s narrow application of Rule 803(4) to exclude licensed professional counselors. See Perez, 113 S.W.3d at 828; Moore, 82 S.W.3d at 404-05.
Here, J.B. specifically testified that she was receiving therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder.3 From this testimony, it is reasonable to infer that J.B. understood that she was receiving therapy to treat a medical condition caused by the sexual assault. See Tex. Occ.Code Ann. § 503.003 (Vernon 2004) (stating that the “practice of professional counseling” means the application of mental health, psychotherapeutic, and human development principles to prevent, assess, evaluate, and treat mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders and associated distresses that interfere with mental health); Kappell, 418 F.3d at 556 (“We hold that Rule 803(4) covers statements made to a psychotherapist for pur[313]*313poses of medical diagnosis or treatment, even though the therapist is not a physician or nurse.”); Danaipour, 386 F.3d at 297 (“Statements by young children amounting to disclosure to treating therapists that they have been abused by a member of their family are usually reasonably pertinent to treatment of the child.”); United States v. George, 960 F.2d 97, 99 (9th Cir.1992) (“Sexual abuse involves more than physical injury; the physician must be attentive to treating the victim’s emotional and psychological injuries, the exact nature and extent of which often depend on the identity of the abuser.”); Wilder, 111 S.W.3d at 256-57. The record also supports a reasonable inference that J.B. understood that she needed to be truthful with Volet to receive proper treatment, and that the facts surrounding J.B.’s encounter with Taylor were reasonably pertinent to Volet’s treatment of J.B. for her issues concerning the resolution of the sexual assault. See Tex.R. Evid. 803(4); Burns, 122 S.W.3d at 438; Wilder, 111 S.W.3d at 257; Beheler, 3 S.W.3d at 188-89. We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Volet’s testimony under Rule 803(4).
Extraneous Offense Instruction
In his second issue, Taylor contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that extraneous offenses could not be considered unless the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor committed the offenses. Specifically, Taylor maintains that he was entitled to the extraneous offense instruction because the trial court admitted evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) that on the night of the sexual assault he fired a gun at Lazy, possessed and used cocaine, and provided cocaine to J.B. See Tex.R. Evid. 404(b). The State responds that the trial court was not required to include the requested instruction because the offenses admitted in this case constitute “same transaction contextual evidence.” See Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 25 (Tex.Crim.App.2000).
When reviewing charge errors, an appellate court must undertake a two-step review: first, the court must determine whether error actually exists in the charge, and second, the court must determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the error to require reversal. Abdnor v. State, 871 S.W.2d 726, 731-32 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Fulenwider v. State, 176 S.W.3d 290, 298 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). The standard to determine whether sufficient harm resulted from the charging error to require reversal depends upon whether appellant objected at trial. Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 732; Fulenwider, 176 S.W.3d at 298. Where there has been a timely objection made at trial, an appellate court will search only for “some harm.” Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 732; Fulenwider, 176 S.W.3d at 298. By contrast, where the error is urged for the first time on appeal, a reviewing court will search for “egregious harm.” Abdnor, 871 S.W.2d at 732; Arline v. State, 721 S.W.2d 348, 351-52 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Fulenwider, 176 S.W.3d at 298.
An extraneous offense is defined as any act of misconduct, whether resulting in prosecution or not, that is not shown in the charging papers. Rankin v. State, 953 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). Texas Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, pro[314]*314vided that upon timely request by the accused in a criminal case, reasonable notice is given in advance of trial of intent to introduce in the State’s case-in-chief such evidence other than that arising in the same transaction.
Tex.R. Evid. 404(b). If the defendant so requests at the guilt/innocence phase of trial, the trial court must instruct the jury not to consider extraneous offense evidence admitted for a limited purpose unless it believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous offense. See George v. State, 890 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex.Crim.App.1994); Rodriguez v. State, 137 S.W.3d 228, 230-31 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
An offense, however, is not tried in a vacuum and the jury is entitled to know all relevant surrounding facts and circumstances of the charged offense. Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 25. Same transaction contextual evidence is therefore admissible without a limiting instruction, but only to the extent that it is necessary to the jury’s understanding of the offense, and only when the offense would make little or no sense without also bringing in the same transaction evidence. McDonald v. State, 179 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Tex.Crim.App.2005); Castaldo v. State, 78 S.W.3d 345, 352 (Tex.Crim.App.2002); Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103, 114-15 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 25; Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524, 532 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). Stated alternatively, same transaction contextual evidence is admissible when several offenses are so intermixed or connected as to form a single, indivisible criminal transaction, such that in narrating the one, it is impracticable to avoid describing the other. McDonald, 179 S.W.3d at 577; Rogers v. State, 853 S.W.2d 29, 33-34 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).
In this case, Taylor’s extraneous offenses were so intertwined with the sexual assault that the jury’s understanding of the sexual assault would have been obscured without them. See McDonald, 179 S.W.3d at 577; Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 25-26; Rogers, 853 S.W.2d at 33-34. The extraneous offenses all occurred closely in time to the sexual assault and a description of each offense was necessary to properly explain the sexual assault and the circumstances under which it took place. Taylor’s encounter with Lazy demonstrated how Taylor ensured that J.B. was alone, and Taylor and J.B.’s cocaine use just before the sexual assault demonstrates that Taylor might have completed his crime by lowering J.B.’s inhibitions. The evidence that Taylor gave J.B. a bag of crack cocaine for Mom immediately after the sexual assault demonstrates that Mom might have set up the encounter between Taylor and J.B. as part of a drug deal. The sexual assault in this case would not have made sense without a description of the contextual evidence surrounding it, including Taylor’s extraneous offenses. See Wesbrook, 29 S.W.3d at 115 (holding evidence that defendant committed three other homicides on night of charged homicide constituted same transaction contextual evidence); Wyatt, 23 S.W.3d at 26 (holding evidence that defendant sexually assaulted child before smothering it constituted same transaction contextual evidence); Moreno v. State, 195 S.W.3d 321, 327 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (holding evidence that defendant completed several other drug deals in days before charged offense constituted same transaction contextual evidence); Nguyen v. State, 177 S.W.3d 659, 667 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, pet. ref'd) (holding evidence that defendant was involved in homicide was same transaction contextual evidence to charged offense of insurance fraud); Heiman v. State, 923 S.W.2d [315]*315622, 626 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. refd) (holding evidence that defendant injected cocaine into himself and victim at time of offense of indecency with child constituted same transaction contextual evidence). We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in denying Taylor’s request for an extraneous offense instruction in the jury charge.
Conclusion
We hold that (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Volet’s hearsay testimony under Texas Rule of Evidence 803(4), and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Taylor’s request for an extraneous offense instruction in the jury charge because the extraneous offenses in this case constitute same transaction contextual evidence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Justice JENNINGS, concurring.