Is there any case law where a defendant was convicted of possessing adult-oriented material at the time of trial?

reasonably probable he would have achieved a more favorable outcome in the absence of any assumed error. (See People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836, 299 P.2d 243; Page, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 4142, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 4, 186 P.3d 395; People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1125, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 235, 885 P.2d 1.) In light of the evidence of the pervasive acts of child molestation that defendant committed, evidence of his possession of adult-oriented material was not especially significant in comparison; the mere possession of such material did not give rise to a strong inference that the possessor was actually motivated to molest children. The persuasive value of the evidence of defendant's acts of molestation was substantial, as he actually committed those actsacts proscribed by section 288. In contrast, his consumption of adult-oriented material was less probative because many who consume such material are not motivated to then molest children. Thus, even assuming the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the adult-oriented material, it was ultimately cumulative to and overshadowed by the other, more powerful evidence of his intent or motive, that is, his acts of child molestation.