Opinion ID: 1944931
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preservation and Crawford Applicability

Text: The State erroneously contends that Rodgers's Crawford claim is not preserved and that Crawford does not apply to this case. Before trial, Rodgers filed a motion to bar the State from using any hearsay during the penalty phase that would violate his rights under the Confrontation Clauses of both the state and federal constitutions, and the trial court denied it. At the inception of the penalty phase, Rodgers renewed the motion, and the court again denied it. As testimony began, defense counsel objected to the State's presentation of hearsay testimony through specific witnesses, and each objection was denied. Section 90.104(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as amended in 2003, provides that [i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. See ch. 2003-259, § 1, at 1298, Laws of Fla. This Court adopted the statute to the extent that it is procedural effective on the date it became law, which was July 1, 2003. In re Amendments to the Florida Evidence CodeSection 90.104, 914 So.2d 940, 941 (Fla.2005); see art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. (providing [t]he Supreme Court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts). Rodgers's trial was held after the effective date of the rule. Thus, Rodgers preserved the argument based solely on his pretrial motion. Even if he had not, however, he renewed the motion in the penalty phase and made contemporaneous objections on the same grounds. Accordingly, even absent the rule the claim is preserved. Further, Crawford applies to this case. In Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987), the United States Supreme Court held that any new rule for conducting criminal trials applies retroactively to all cases, state or federal, pending on direct review or not yet final. Cf. Chandler v. Crosby, 916 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.2005) (holding that Crawford does not apply retroactively to final decisions). Rodgers had not been sentenced when Crawford issued in March 2004. In addition, a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause apply to the guilt phase, the penalty phase, and sentencing. See Rodriguez v. State, 753 So.2d 29, 43 (Fla.2000) (stating the uncontroverted proposition that the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation applies to all three phases of the capital trial). Thus, Rodgers raised and preserved his claim in the penalty phase, and Crawford applies because it issued during the pendency of his case in the trial court.