another, so that a person in the declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless he or she believed it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is inadmissible, unless corroborating circumstances show the trustworthiness of the statement. § 90.804(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). This exception applies only when the declarant is unavailable as a witness. See § 90.804(2), Fla. Stat. (2005); Curtis v. State, 876 So.2d 13, 18-19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, there was no showing that either minor was unavailable as a witness or that, when they made their statements, they believed that they would be subject to criminal charges. See also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 3 . In Stangherlin v. Kelly, 419 So.2d 1154,
holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them holding that an absent witnesss statements are admissible under the confrontation clause only where the declarant is unavailable and only where the defendant   had a prior opportunity to crossexamine holding that when declarant is unavailable outofcourt statements that are testimonial are inadmissible even if they meet an exception to the hearsay rules holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination