its discretion in denying the mistrial. See Hawkins, 135 S.W.3d at 77. We overrule Appellant’s fifth issue. Conclusion We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 . See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11 (Vernon 2011) & 22.021 (Vernon 2016). 2 . For the purpose of this appeal, we refer to the children using the pseudonyms Alice, Belle, and Cici, rather than using their initials, and their mother as Mother. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 57.02(h) (Vernon Supp. 2016). 3 . Belle also testified that on another date, Appellant attempted to kiss- her on the mouth, but she pulled away from him. She did not mention this during her forensic interview. 4 . Parties do not contest the testimonial nature of the forensic examinations. See Woodall v. State, 336 S.W.3d 634, 642 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011)
holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing holding that in reviewing confrontation clause challenge appellate courts must first determine whether the confrontation clause is implicated holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment