pursuant to Rule 804a — an exception to the hearsay rules — does not answer the hearsay question he is raising. Instead, the thrust of defendant’s argument is to erroneously anticipate that the State might argue that the videotaped statements are admissible as prior consistent statements under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), another limited exception to Rule 802’s bar against hearsay evidence. Defendant’s brief is largely a refutation of that nonexistent argument. Without more, we cannot address any claim of error that there was a hearsay violation when all that is before us is the trial court’s decision that the videotape of the interview was admissible pursuant to Rule 804a, a special exception to the hearsay rule. ¶ 9. Rule 804a allows admission of a child victim’s statements and 4, 226 (1993) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 10. Defendant also claims that admission of
holding that it was error to admit a videotaped interview of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse because the defendant was deprived of the right to crossexamine the child 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 videotaped interview between child and investigator was admissible holding that even if videotaped interview of child violated sparkmans constitutional right to confront this witness the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where appellant admitted engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct with child among other evidence of direct accusation of criminal sexual conduct holding that since petitioner made specific request for counsel before interview policeinitiated interview was impermissible