harm. This case presents extraordinary circumstances, and a compelling case-specific necessity that justifies the State’s requested accommodation. CONCLUSION ¶ 24 We adopt the Craig test, and applying it to this case, conclude that Davis’s confrontation rights can be satisfied through the use of two-way video testimony. Accordingly, we accept jurisdiction of the petition for special action and grant relief. The trial court’s order is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to allow the State’s requested trial accommodation. 1 . See State v. Smith, 308 P.3d 135, 137 (N.M.Ct.App.2013) (citing Harrell v. State, 709 So.2d 1364, 1368-69 (Fla.1998) (declining to find live satellite testimony to be equivalent to live, face-to-face testimony)). Bat see Gigante, 166 F.3d at 81 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gigante, 971 F.Supp. 755,
holding the issue was preserved when the trial court immediately appeared to understand the objection was a renewal of a previous argument holding that because the appellant did not present to the administrative agency the argument it raised before this court the issue was not preserved and holding that even if preserved the argument failed holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it   holding as applied challenges preserved because motion for new trial was filed and the trial court ruled holding that when a trial court used a twoway video system facetoface confrontation was preserved and it was therefore unnecessary to enforce the craig standard