In George v. State, 890 S.W.2d 73 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994) the Court held: "Because the standard of proof necessary to admit extraneous offenses is beyond a reasonable doubt, the previous rationale for requiring the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the extraneous offenses continues to exist." George, 890 S.W.2d at 76 The George Court reached its holding in reliance on Harrell v. State, 884 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. Cr. App. 1994), by a procedure unsatisfactory to some who thought it was right as well as those who thought it was wrong. "Today I am nothing less than astounded at how the ... majority ... now resolves the State's claim in this cause. ... By this nifty bit of legerdemain, the majority has managed to dodge the State's central contention in ... this cause. Such blatant avoidance is especially inappropriate in a discretionary review court, the job of which is to confront the difficult issues head-on." George, 890 S.W.2d at 77 (Clinton, J., concurring).