A Cobb County jury found Steven Edwin Dameron guilty of two counts of child molestation, aggravated sexual battery, and cruelty to children, which charges arose from acts Dameron committed against his minor step-daughter. He appeals, claiming the trial court erred in allowing expert opinion testimony that went to the ultimate issue; that the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of inadmissible hearsay; and that reversal is required because, at trial, the victim recanted her allegations of abuse. Upon review of the record, we find Dameron’s claims of error to be without merit and affirm. 1. Dameron challenges the admission of testimony from expert witness, Karen Nash, that the victim’s behavior was “consistent with children that have been sexually abused.” He contends such testimony went to “the ultimate issue of the case, ie sic: whether in fact the victim has been molested by the Defendant.” However, Dameron made no objection to this testimony, and “counsel must make a proper objection on the record at the earliest possible time to preserve for review the point of error.”1 Further, contrary to Dameron’s argument, the disputed testimony went to whether the victim had, in fact, been sexually abused and not to the identification of the perpetrator of the abuse. Finally, in the face of the trial court’s call for objection, Dameron conceded Nash’s qualification as an expert “in the treatment of children who have experienced trauma and issues of sexual abuse,” and this fact deprives him of the right to complain about testimony relating thereto.2
2. The child/victim’s outcry was videotaped, and Dameron’s attorney stipulated that the admission of the videotape into evidence was “proper.” The only objection was to a portion of the videotape wherein the victim testified that, while at church, Dameron asked that he and the victim and the victim’s mother pray about the incidents of sexual abuse. Dameron objected because such statement was “a confession at church. It’s a statement about a confession at church.” Now, before this Court, Dameron claims the statement was inadmissible hearsay without sufficient indicia of reliability to admit it under the necessity exception to the hearsay rule. We disagree.
