¶1We have reconsidered this case in light of the Supreme Court’s mandate in Dowling v. State, 605 So.2d 465 (Fla.1992). We affirm based upon Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992).
¶2We are affirming the convictions in this case because the admission of the child hearsay testimony did not rise to the level of reversible error. However, we caution the State that we will continue to scrutinize *374the admission of child hearsay testimony to prevent prosecutorial overkill.
¶3Affirmed.