witnesses. Lewis claims that it was error for the trial court to allow the investigating officer’s testimony that Lewis became the target of the investigation after he interviewed the two non-testifying witnesses. He further contends this was inadmissible hearsay, and its admission was harmful and prejudicial. The State argues that the officer’s testimony referred only to the lead supplied by the testifying victims of the crimes, and it was defense counsel who revealed the names of the non-testifying witnesses from the scene during cross-examination of the officer. As such, the State argues any error was invited and harmless. This Court has held that testimony similar to that elicited in this case is inadmissible hearsay. See Cedillo v. State, 949 So.2d 339, 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (<HOLDING>). Here, the investigating officer testified on
holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness holding that police officers testimony indicating he developed the defendant as a suspect after speaking with a nontestifying witness implied that the witness made accusatory statements against defendant and therefore was inadmissible hearsay holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness