the same events was available and that witness actually testified. The Court stated: Although there appear to be few opinions on this aspect of the residual hearsay exception, United States Courts of Appeals have held ... that, if a party who proposes to introduce a pretrial statement under the “residual exception” has a witness who will testify in court to the facts sought to be provided, the trial judge should not admit the statement under Fed.R.Evid. 803(24). Id. at 275 (footnote omitted) (citing and discussing Netterville v. Missouri, 800 F.2d 798 (8th Cir.1986) (civil rights complaint for racial discrimination); United States v. Welsh, 774 F.2d 670 (4th Cir.1985) (criminal trial for the interstate transportation of stolen property); United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285 (5t 1992) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fink, 32 M.J. 987
recognizing exception holding childvictims statement to babysitter admissible un der residual exception in addition to statement to physician under medical treatment exception holding ehildvictims testimony at pretrial investigation admissible under residual exception in addition to doctors testimony under medical treatment exception holding statement by childvictim to teachers aide admissible under residual exception in addition to statements to school nurse and pediatrician under medical treatment exception holding trial courts allowance of testimony under the present sense impression exception if error was harmless because statement was admissible under excited utterance exception