section, the court shall make an order stating what evidence may be introduced by the defendant or the state and the nature of the questions to be permitted. The defendant or the state may then offer evidence under the order of the court. 8 . The Indiana Supreme Court has noted that “[t]o the extent there are any differences [between Ind.Code § 35-37-4-4 and Ind. Evidence Rule 412], Evidence Rule 412 controls.” Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195, 200 n. 6 (Ind. 1997). 9 . Oatts argues that "the viewing of the pornographic video should not be considered 'past sexual conduct’ with [sic] the meaning of the rule." Appellant's Brief at 6. Oatts does not develop this argument or cite to authority. Consequently, this issue is waived. See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, n. 1 (Ind.2006) (<HOLDING>); Shane v. State, 716 N.E.2d 391, 398 n. 3
holding that the defendant waived argument on appeal by failing to develop a cogent argument holding that failure to develop cogent argument waives the issue for appellate review holding that a claim is waived on appeal when not supported by citation to relevant authority holding that failure to develop a cogent argument waives the issue for appellate review holding that the defendants contention was waived because it was supported neither by cogent argument nor citation to authority