Appellant Christopher Duffy was convicted of sexual battery of a child under twelve by a person eighteen or older, and he was sentenced to life in prison. Although he raises three issues on appeal, we write only to address the issues involving the admissibility of the child hearsay statements and sufficiency of the States information. We affirm the judgment and sentence.
We find that the trial court did not err in admitting the six-year-old childs hearsay statements to the Child Protection Team and the childs father. The trial court made sufficient findings that the childs hearsay statements that he performed oral sex on Appellant at Appellants direction were reliable and in conformity with the requirements of section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, and the trial courts ruling was not an abuse of discretion. See Small v. State, 179 So. 3d 421, 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Such rulings must be supported by specific “safeguards of reliability” including specific factual findings. Id. (citing State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949, 954 (Fla. 1994)). While more findings could have been provided here to underscore the trial courts reasoning, the order reflects that the trial court did not abuse its discretion because it found the childs statements to the Team and the childs unsolicited statements to his father were reliable under the statute and Small. The trial court noted the age-appropriate language used by the child and the open-ended questions during the interview with the Child Protection Team.
Furthermore, we note that the information was fairly specific regarding the timeframe of the alleged crime. The childs statements to his father were made within approximately six or seven months of the incident. The interview was conducted soon thereafter. The child testified at trial, some three years after reporting the sexual activity, was cross examined, and confirmed that the Appellant had the child perform oral sex on him, an act constituting capital sexual battery.
The Appellant was not prejudiced by any defect in the information, which specifically charged capital sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes. There was no objection to the information, and any such objection would have been properly denied, or the State could have amended the information before or at trial to conform to the specific act of oral sex. See Thach v. State, 342 So. 3d 620, 624 (Fla. 2022). Appellant denied committing any sexual act with the child. Thus, the jury was not presented with conflicting evidence as to the nature of the alleged act; either Appellant had the child perform oral sex on him or he did not. The jury concluded that Appellant did have the child commit the act of oral sex.
We decline to address Appellants final argument, which he commendably concedes is foreclosed by law. See Steiger v. State, 328 So. 3d 926, 932 (Fla. 2021).
AFFIRMED.
B.L. THOMAS, J.
ROBERTS and JAY, JJ., concur.