State v. Johnson, 128 So. 3d 237

Defendant charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver after a controlled buy recorded on video between defendant and a confidential informant.
State sought to admit the video of the transaction at trial as proof of the crime.
Defendant moved in limine to exclude the video, arguing it was testimonial and barred by the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington.
Trial court granted the motion and excluded the recording pretrial.
State petitioned for writ of certiorari from the exclusion order, arguing the exclusion violated clearly established law and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a video of an in-progress drug transaction is "testimonial" under the Confrontation Clause so as to be excluded under Crawford	The recording is admissible; exclusion violates clearly established law and causes miscarriage of justice	The video is testimonial out-of-court evidence and inadmissible without opportunity to confront the declarant	Video is non-testimonial because it depicts the crime as it occurred; exclusion was erroneous — petition granted, order quashed

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (establishes that out-of-court testimonial statements are barred absent unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (refines "testimonial" by applying the primary-purpose test; statements made contemporaneously to events are generally non-testimonial)
United States v. Underwood, 446 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2006) (recorded conversations for a cocaine purchase held non-testimonial)
State v. Sandoval, 125 So.3d 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (certiorari standard for obtaining relief from pretrial evidentiary rulings)