“the preciseness of words is not necessary in presenting the issue so long as the state court has an adequate opportunity to consider a party’s objection”). If Hutchins and Osborne set the minimum standards for articulation of a federal constitutional claim in state proceedings, it is then clear to us that the Petitioner’s brief to the Florida appellate court falls above that minimum. Petitioner’s words were precise. He specifically emphasized that the exclusion of Mr. Donorvitch’s non-testimonial evidence implicated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present evidence in his defense. His citation to case law in support of this claim was not solely to “a state-court decision predicated solely on state law.” Cf. Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. at 7 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. at 278 n. 3 (<HOLDING>). Dumas v. State, 350 So.2d 464 (Fla.1977), the
holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress holding applicants general state court claim was insufficient to exhaust his later more specific federal habeas claim holding that a reviewing court is not to substitute its decision for that of the board holding that the superior court in reviewing agency action uses the precise scope of review the court of appeals employs in reviewing contested cases holding such authority insufficient to apprise a reviewing court of a potential federal claim