In State v. Townsend, 635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the child hearsay exception, section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1995), in the context of a prosecution for sexual battery on the defendant's two-year old daughter. The State and defendant stipulated that the child was incompetent to testify due to her age so that, but for the hearsay exception, the child's statements would have been excluded. Section 90.603, Florida Statutes (1997), governing the disqualification of witnesses provides: A person is disqualified to testify as a witness when the court determines that the person is: (1) Incapable of expressing himself or herself concerning the matter in such a manner as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him or her. (2) Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth. The Court found that, as applied to child victims of abuse "with a physical, mental, emotional, or developmental age of 11 or less," section 90.803(23)(a), the child hearsay exception was constitutional as long as trial courts found, before admitting statements under this exception, that particularized guarantees of trustworthiness ensured the reliability of the statements. See Townsend, 635 So. 2d at 956-58. In Townsend, in an effort to ensure the reliability of any statement that would be admissible, the Court set forth additional factors that may be considered by the court including the statement's spontaneity; whether the statement was made at the first available opportunity following the alleged incident; whether the statement was elicited in response to questions from adults; the mental state of the child when the abuse was reported; whether the statement consisted of a child-like description of the act; whether the child used terminology unexpected of a child of similar age; the motive or lack thereof to fabricate the statement; the ability of the child to distinguish between reality and fantasy; the vagueness of the accusations; the possibility of any improper influence on the child by participants involved in a domestic dispute; and contradictions in the accusation. 635 So. 2d at 958.