Miller, Presiding Judge. Walter Underwood was convicted of two counts of child molestation (OCGA § 16-6-4 (b) (1)), and sentenced to concurrent 12-year terms of imprisonment.[1] He now appeals from the denial of his motion for new trial. We affirm Underwood’s convictions because (1) there was no reversible error in the trial court’s determination that Underwood’s estranged wife could invoke marital privilege and decline to testify, and (2) Underwood has not shown that trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient or that he was prejudiced as a result, as required to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Although we affirm the convictions, we must vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing because, as the State concedes, the trial court erred in failing to impose a split sentence as required by OCGA § 17-10-6.2 (b).Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,[2] Underwood often babysat his several grandchildren, including the victim who was his step grand-daughter. When the victim was eight years old, Underwood began touching her by slapping her bottom and touching her breasts while she was clothed. Once, while babysitting, Underwood told the victim’s brother to go to his room, leaving Underwood and the victim alone. Underwood then touched the victim’s bottom, breasts, and vagina. On one occasion, Underwood took the victim into her parents’ bedroom, locked the door, undressed the victim, and started kissing and touching her. He then removed his own clothes, tried to “put himself inside” the victim, and then “peed on” her. The victim ran into the bathroom, and Underwood followed her, instructing her not to tell anyone. The victim was frightened and did not tell anyone at the time. Underwood continued to touch and kiss the victim after this incident, including a time when he attempted to remove her clothes but she stopped him.[3] In 2013, when she was about 13-years-old, a friend talked about how she had been molested. This convinced the victim that she should tell someone what Underwood had been doing to her, and she told her step-mother, who is Underwood’s daughter. Her step-mother “sat there and cried, and a few minutes later she [said], I believe you, but I cannot tell you why.”After the victim’s accusation, Underwood’s two sons, daughter, sister, and estranged wife held a family meeting with Underwood. During this meeting, Underwood admitted that he molested the victim. The family later learned that Underwood had also molested his niece when she was about 12 years old. At trial, Underwood testified in his own defense, denying the allegations. According to Underwood, he suffers from severe medical issues that prevent him from experiencing sexual desire. He has had several heart attacks, numerous angioplasties, and has had more than 17 stints placed to open blocked arteries. He takes 22 different medicines daily for blood pressure, cholesterol, and depression. As a result, he suffers from erectile dysfunction.The jury convicted Underwood of both counts of molestation. The trial court sentenced Underwood to concurrent terms of 12 years’ imprisonment.1. Underwood contends that the trial court improperly advised his estranged wife that she could invoke marital privilege and decline to testify because (a) the privilege does not apply when the crime involved a minor, and (b) Underwood and his wife were separated at the time of the trial. We discern no reversible error. Under OCGA § 24-5-503 (a), “[a] husband and wife shall be competent but shall not be compellable to give evidence in any criminal proceeding for or against each other.” However, this privilege does not extend to cases in which “[t]he husband or wife is charged with a crime against the person of a child under the age of 18 . . . .” OCGA § 24-5-503 (b) (1). In such cases, “such husband or wife shall be compellable to give evidence only on the specific act for which the accused is charged.” Id. The privilege belongs to the spouse and not the defendant. Young v. State, 232 Ga. 285, 287 (206 SE2d 439) (1974) (discussing prior version of the statute). Generally, we apply a harmless error analysis to the issue of whether the trial court erred by excluding testimony of a witness. See, e.g., Walker v. State, 296 Ga. 161, 167-168 (2) (766 SE2d 28) (2014) (exclusion of testimony that was cumulative, if error, was harmless); Lynn v. State, 296 Ga. 109, 113 (2) (765 SE2d 322) (2014) (considering whether exclusion of testimony was harmless, but concluding that it was not because the testimony concerned a possible motive, was hotly disputed, and was central to the defendant’s defense, and credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury). Here, the trial court advised Underwood’s wife, Debra, that she could invoke the privilege and decline to testify, which she elected to do. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, Debra testified that she and Underwood had been separated about a year and a half at the time of the trial. She stated that she was aware Underwood experienced erectile dysfunction, but she could not attest to his sexual health while the two were separated. The trial court acknowledged that the marital privilege would not apply in cases involving minors, but that any testimony provided would be limited to the “specific act.” The trial court then concluded that proof of penetration was not necessary in a molestation case and therefore, testimony regarding Underwood’s erectile dysfunction was not related to the “specific act.” Moreover, the court noted that Underwood’s defense was that the acts never happened — not that he could not commit them. Thus, testimony about erectile dysfunction was not relevant to his defense. The trial court also concluded that the privilege would continue even if the spouses separated.Pretermitting whether the exception to marital privilege in § 24-5-503 (b) (1) would apply in this case, either due to the parties’ separation or because the testimony involved the “specific act” with which Underwood was charged, we conclude that any error in advising Debra that she could invoke the privilege was harmless.Underwood testified at length about his medical condition, asserting that it left him devoid of any sexual desire and suffering from erectile dysfunction. Had Debra testified, she would have confirmed the erectile dysfunction diagnosis. However, Debra was in no position to testify to Underwood’s ability to achieve sexual arousal, and her testimony would not have negated an element of the crime. Cline v. State, 224 Ga. App. 235, 236 (1) (480 SE2d 269) (1997) (rejecting the argument that State failed to prove child molestation where evidence showed he did not obtain or maintain an erection during the conduct). Thus, any error in advising Debra that she could assert marital privilege was harmless. 2. In his second enumeration of error, Underwood argues that his trial counsel was constitutionally deficient in failing to (a) call Debra as a witness to testify regarding his medical condition; (b) object to hearsay evidence in the victim’s testimony about her step-mother’s response to the allegations; and (c) investigate his sexual health.To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance so prejudiced the defendant that there is a reasonable likelihood that, but for counsel’s errors, the outcome of the trial would have been different. [See] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If an appellant fails to meet his or her burden of proving either prong of the Strickland test, the reviewing court does not have to examine the other prong. In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless clearly erroneous, but we independently apply the legal principles to the facts.
