in this appeal his conviction at the district court level to now be arguing that the cumulative effect of the evidence that was allowed to be presented by the prosecution they were protected by mr berg to presented at trial because the prosecution was allowed to present this evidence it's not possible to know whether the jury convicted birds based on the evidence that was presented or perturbed crime possession and distribution of child action wasn't relevant evidence on the question whether committed to charged offenses these dolls were not they were not part of any of the images that were found images to be honest computer by showing that he had an interest in the sort of image or material and i think it's a fine line between showing that somebody had a sexual interest in the same residence at pornographic images or male enhancement products that are found at the same residence of somebody who because that is part of graphic images there's nothing about this legal activity possible this activity that they don't suggest there is nothing about that that makes it more likely that it downloaded and uploaded pornography and i think this is how we tend to distinguish between the present  individual but those images were nearly identical to the images that the defendant had taken with a minor individual so these are almost the exact same kind that just regarding an angel and child in this case the do are related to a completely separate time conduct than downloading or distributing for a graphic images they are part of those images they are analogous to those images they are similar enough to those images to be admitted for depicting children in a story with sexual overtones which seems even weaker than the evidence here and that was admitted i realize the male enhancement stuff was kept but not that  around the dolphin which is what we're talking about usually of evidence comes in the room d for a for b it would have a limiting instruction so if there was no instruction i take it that the judge let it in without limitation and kind of conduit between s p n his own victim the testimony went so far beyond the similar conduct that it had initially been presented for so that kind of blows out of the conviction and in fact in all the cases on point here we're dealing with convictions not accusation in this case this testimony was allowed even though it was an accusation and it was related to charges that were and i want to think that for the record there was not the limiting instruction that was given with regard to the doll but a living instruction was not necessary because you have to do it under or one made it clear that he with nothing in the book or one or two and that he that in this know imitation all me all criminal all evidence and her mom case is designed to show that the defendant is the one who did the crime but that doesn't mean it's all identity evidence that's true and of article is now direct evidence and relevant to the chart from the jobs that were presented as evidence the mask is relevant because it's used in a burglary for use in a robbery here there's no evidence that these jobs were actually part of this downloading or distributing of child pornography the only similarity between these dolls and those images that were part of the evidence for the underlying charges is that it involves children that's the similarity allegation and the fact that they are related to charges that were dropped in combination those two elements these allegations and that evidence less reliable than presented in concludes the argument session for this afternoon