In Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.--Houston 1st Dist. 2003, pet. granted), the defendant argued that the State's notice was insufficient because the State did not inform the defendant of its intent to use evidence of an extraneous offense until the day before trial. 106 S.W.3d at 414. The Court held that even if the admission of the testimony was in error, the error was harmless. Id. at 414. The State did not act in bad faith by giving notice only a day before trial because the State had learned about the extraneous offense the day before trial. Id. at 415. The insufficient notice did not prevent the defendant from preparing for trial because the trial court gave the defendant twenty minutes to interview the witness before testimony began. Id. The defendant did not request more time at the end of the twenty minutes, and nothing suggested to the Court that the twenty minutes was insufficient time to allow him to prepare cross-examination. Id. Additionally, the defendant admitted to his presence at the scene of the extraneous offense, but claimed it was another person who committed the offense. Id. The Court held that nothing showed that the defendant was surprised or unable to defend against the evidence. Id.