For the pedophile exception to apply, there first must be a sufficient degree of similarity between the evidence to be introduced and the charged sexual conduct. E.g., Watson v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 721, at 4, 478 S.W.3d 286, 289. "The previous acts do not have to be identical, just similar[,]" and a circuit court's determination that the act in question warrants admission under the pedophile exception is given "considerable leeway" on appellate review.
. Coger v. State, 2017 Ark.App. 466, 529 S.W.3d 640; Ressler v. State, 2017 Ark.App. 208, 518 S.W.3d 690; Watson v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 721, 478 S.W.3d 286; Devries v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 478, at 6, 588 S.W.3d 139, 143. Finally, we find no merit in Ms. Smith's argument that a mechanism of injury had to be established before a diagnosis of child abuse was given.
We will not reverse when a point on appeal is unsupported by convincing arguments or sufficient citation to legal authority. Coger v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 466, 529 S.W.3d 640 ; Ressler v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 208, 518 S.W.3d 690 ; Watson v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 721, 478 S.W.3d 286.C. Distributing, Possessing, or Viewing Sexually Explicit Conduct Involving a Child
Although he outlines that the trial court denied his motion for mistrial, appellant fails to provide any argument, citation to any authority, or prayer for relief. We do not consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient citation to legal authority. Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105, 233 S.W.3d 627 (2006) ; Watson v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 721, 478 S.W.3d 286. Thus, we affirm on this point on appeal.III. "Choice of Evils" Jury Instruction
We will not reverse when a point on appeal is unsupported by convincing arguments or sufficient citation to legal authority. Ressler v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 208, at 9, 518 S.W.3d 690, 695–96 ; Watson v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 721, at 6, 478 S.W.3d 286, 290. We therefore affirm the circuit court's ruling on this issue.
We will not reverse when a point on appeal is unsupported by convincing arguments or sufficient citation to legal authority. Watson v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 721, at 6, 478 S.W.3d 286, 290. Ressler's daughter consented to the search of her home and the seizure of her property. While Ressler moved to suppress evidence below, he never fully articulated the legal basis for his suppression motion, and he has again failed to do so here. To the extent that he argues on appeal that the search warrant was improperly based on his daughter's hearsay statements to Detective Racy, Ressler never raised that argument below, and it is therefore unpreserved for appellate review.
We do not consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient citation to legal authority.Watson v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 721, at 6, 478 S.W.3d 286, 289–90 (citing Armstrong v. State, 366 Ark. 105, 109, 233 S.W.3d 627, 631 (2006) ).III. Jury Instruction