the State’s case, when the appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, the court stated that it had found, based on Dr. Faison’s report “that [the victim] is not available to provide testimony from memory due to the conditions described by the psychologist.” (R. 62.) The juvenile court clearly determined that the victim was unavailable to testify, and it specifically put its ruling to that effect on the record. Although the determination was not put on the record when the juvenile court initially ruled during the pretrial hearing that the evidence of the out-of-court statements was admissible, by putting the determination on the record at the conclusion of the State’s case, the juvenile court complied with § 15-25-38. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 745 So.2d 284, 290 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the court specifically stated that
holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case holding that the trial courts putting its findings on the record at the conclusion of the states case was sufficient to satisfy  152538 because that section does not specifically limit the time within which the court must state the findings holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss