Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): CURIAM. After a jury trial, William Bubb was convicted of sexual battery on a person less than twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious molestation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by permitting the victim’s Child Protection Team (“CPT”) interview video to be admitted into evidence after the child took the witness stand but refused to testify. We affirm. This alleged error was not preserved below. See Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010) (“While no magic words are required to make a proper objection, ... the concern articulated in the objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the court of the perceived error.” (citations omitted)); Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986, 1003 (Fla. 2006) (<HOLDING>). We further conclude that any error in the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding appellants confrontation issue unpreserved for appeal (B) holding that scattered statements in the appellants briefs are not enough to preserve an issue for appeal (C) holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal (D) holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal (E) holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  
Output (English): holding that appellants failure to obtain a ruling at the trial level even on a constitutional issue precluded review on appeal