for cause based on bias. Moreover, there is no statute or rule requiring a victim to be presented to the venire. Here, the victim and his wife were not available to be presented to the venire to determine if any member of the panel may have known the victim or his wife. Similarly, if the victim or a witness was unavailable because of injury or death, he or she clearly would not be present. However, the prosecutor offered to present the names of the victim and his wife to the venire to determine bias. Despite some discussion after the trial court’s dismissal as to whether the victim had wanted Watts to be imprisoned, the prosecutor clearly stated that the victim and witness would be available and willing to testify at trial. Cf. Ready v. State, 574 So.2d 894, 902 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (<HOLDING>). After asserting that the victim and witness
holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements holding admission of preliminary hearing testimony did not violate the sixth amendment where defendants motive during crossexamination was the same as at trial holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony holding that a videotaped interview between the child and an investigator was admissible