SALADEEN v. STATE (2021)

AFFIRMED. See Small v. State, 179 So. 3d 421, 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“The standard of review applied to a trial court's finding that the hearsay statements of a child victim are reliable and come from a trustworthy source, making them admissible pursuant to section 90.803(23), [Florida Statutes,] is abuse of discretion.” (citing Perez v. State, 536 So. 2d 206, 210 (Fla. 1988); Jones v. State, 728 So. 2d 788, 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999))); Rutledge v. State, 1 So. 3d 1122, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“The similarity of the prior acts to the charged crimes ․, the closeness in time ․, and the frequency of the prior acts lead ineluctably to the conclusion that the probative value of the ․ previous child molestation of the same victim of the charged crimes substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.” (citing McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248, 1262 (Fla. 2006))); see also Smith v. State, 538 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“Evidence [under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes,] that deals only with similar sex acts against the [minor] victim in the case being tried is far less subject to objection than evidence of similar acts against other victims.” (citing Gibbs v. State, 394 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA), aff'd, 406 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1981))).

PER CURIAM.

LAMBERT, TRAVER and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.