BURNELL v. STATE (2024)

Affirmed. See Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857, 871 (Fla. 2006) (noting that in order to preserve a Confrontation Clause challenge for appeal, a defendant must object on Confrontation Clause grounds in the trial court); Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005) (explaining that to preserve an error for appeal, 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.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). See also Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (noting a trial court generally has broad discretion in the decision to permit or deny recross-examination) (citing Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359, 389 (Fla. 2014) (“Discretion is abused only when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”) (quotation omitted).

PER CURIAM.