Following a jury trial, Michael Snider appeals his conviction on one count of aggravated child molestation1 and on four counts of child molestation,2 contending that the trial court erred i in admitting certain child-hearsay statements under OCGA § 24-3-16, ii in granting the State’s motion to exclude evidence of a prior molestation of one of the victims by another adult, iii in denying Snider’s motion to exclude evidence of his prior convictions for impeachment purposes, iv in admitting evidence of similar transactions, v in admitting evidence of a prior consistent statement of a child witness, and vi in not charging the jury on prior consistent statements. Discerning no error, we affirm. Construed in favor of the verdict, Davis v. State ,3 the evidence shows that, based on the in-court testimony of the child victims, between April 2004 and February 2005, Snider often placed his mouth on the private parts of 10-to-11-year-old male Chevy, repeatedly fondled the private parts of Chevy, had Chevy seven times fondle Snider’s private parts, fondled 6-year-old male P. H.’s private parts, and fondled 12-year-old male Charles’s private parts P. H. was the cousin of Chevy and Charles, who were brothers. These victims testified that Snider performed these acts when each respective child was startled from sleep while sleeping overnight in Snider’s bed in his trailer home near a marina. Snider threatened to kill Chevy if he ever told anyone of the incidents.
Although the last to experience molestation by Snider, P. H. was the first to disclose his encounter. Immediately after the encounter, he had someone call his parents to come pick him up because he was scared. He told his mother of the molestation by Snider some days thereafter when she inquired as to whether anyone had ever touched him inappropriately. Hearing of their cousin P. H.’s disclosure, Chevy and Charles told their stepfather of their sexual encounters with Snider. Although P. H. freely repeated this disclosure to the forensic interviewer at the local child advocacy center explaining that was the reason he had his parents come pick him up, Chevy and Charles both changed their respective stories when interviewed at the center, claiming no inappropriate conduct occurred. After repeating to his stepfather his initial disclosure of molestation, Chevy was then re-interviewed by a trained child forensic interviewer of the sheriff’s department, at which time Chevy told of the molestation. Chevy stated that he had withheld disclosing the molestation to the child advocacy interviewer because he was afraid Snider would make good on his threat to hurt him. Although also re-interviewed by this same forensic interviewer of the sheriff’s office, Charles a special education student maintained that no sexual encounter occurred. Nevertheless, as stated above, all three boys testified at trial to the sexual encounters.
