when her mother called her. Given the similarities between the two encounters, appellant’s prior behavior with M.B. indicates that the incident with K.T. was, not a mistake or misunderstanding, See Robisheaux v. State, 483 S.W.3d 205, 219-20 (Tex.App.—Austin Jan. 7, 2016, pet. ref'd) (concluding that offenses were “remarkably], similar” when victims were 'around the same age and defendant engaged in similar behavior toward both victims). Moreover, the State was required to show appellant intended to induce K.T. to engage in sexual performance. Thus, the trial court reasonably could have 'concluded that the'State’s need for the evidence was considerable. See Gigliobianco, 210 S.W.3d at 642; see also Checo v. State, 402 S.W.3d 440, 452 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.]. 2013, pet. ref'd) (<HOLDING>). M.B.’s- testimony that appellant bound her,
recognizing continuing harm from defendants knowing possession of child pornography holding admission of videos containing child pornography was probative of intent to sexually assault a child holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting images and videos of child pornography because the stipulation was not an adequate substitute for the evidence offered