Opinion ID: 2496493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Corona Preserved the Crawford Issue

Text: Violations of the Confrontation Clause, where preserved, are subject to harmless error analysis. State v. Contreras, 979 So.2d 896, 911 (Fla.2008). However, in this case, the State argues that Corona's Confrontation Clause argument is unpreserved. Because there is a dispute between the parties as to whether Corona's confrontation claim is preserved, we first analyze the objections made by Corona concerning A.C.'s statements before considering the effect the confrontation error had on Corona's trial. At the pretrial hearing on the admissibility of hearsay statements, the State asserted that A.C. was unavailable for trial. After hearing testimony from the State's witnesses and argument from the State and Corona, the trial court determined that A.C. was unavailable as a witness and that her statements were reliable and admissible. After the trial court's ruling, defense counsel argued that the admission of A.C.'s statements violated Corona's constitutional right to confrontation. The trial court rejected this confrontation argument. Subsequently, at trial, and immediately before the testimony of a State witness, defense counsel informed the court that she would like to renew all previous objections. When the court asked if counsel wanted to renew any in particular, she stated, in part, the child's hearsay statements coming in. Later, during the testimony of Deputy Avilas, counsel objected on hearsay grounds when Avilas was questioned about statements made by A.C. The trial court then stated, Rather than objecting to every single question that gets asked, why don't we assume you have a standing objection to this line of questioning. And based upon prior rules [sic] by the court, I'm going to overrule those objections. But you've preserved your objection. In order for an appellate court to reverse a judgment or sentence on appeal, the asserted error must either be preserved or constitute fundamental error. To preserve the error, three requirements must be met: First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection. Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection. Third, [i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below. The purpose of this rule is to place [ ] the trial judge on notice that error may have been committed, and provide [] him an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings. Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005) (citations omitted) (quoting Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982); Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla.1978)). These requirements are also codified in our statutes. Section 924.051, Florida Statutes (2002), outlines the [t]erms and conditions of appeals and collateral review in criminal cases. Specifically, section 924.051(3), Florida Statutes (2002), states in part, An appeal may not be taken from a judgment or order of a trial court unless a prejudicial error is alleged and is properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, would constitute fundamental error. Subsection (1)(b) notes that an issue, legal argument or objection to evidence is preserved when it is timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court . . . [and is] sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor. § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). Based on our review of the record, we conclude that Corona has met both the statutory and case law requirements for preservation. Although we recognize that an objection to an out-of-court statement as inadmissible hearsay will not preserve the Crawford issue, Williams v. State, 967 So.2d 735, 748 n. 11 (Fla.2007) (citing Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So.2d 857, 871 (Fla.2006)), we do not interpret our precedent as imposing a requirement that a defendant intone special magic words in order to preserve this constitutional claim. See, e.g., Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108, 1117 (Fla.2009) (While no magic words are needed to make a proper objection, the articulated concern must be `sufficiently specific to inform the court of the perceived error.') (quoting State v. Stephenson, 973 So.2d 1259, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)); see also Evans v. State, 838 So.2d 1090, 1097 n. 5 (Fla.2002) (holding that failure to specifically assert a Sixth Amendment challenge will not preclude appellate review where the hearsay objection is closely related to the right of confrontation). Rather, as denoted in our statutes, an issue is preserved where it is timely raised and ruled on and apprises the court of the relief sought and the basis for that relief. The record in this case demonstrates that the trial court was well aware of the nature of the objections when it overruled the objections on the basis of its prior rulings concerning A.C.'s statements. Importantly, the court's prior ruling concerning the exclusion of A.C.'s statements was based in part on the court's rejection of Corona's confrontation argument. Thus, it is clear to this Court that Corona's later hearsay objection fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor. § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2002). In light of the unique facts in this case, we conclude that Corona's confrontation violation was preserved and is subject to harmless error review.