With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case. The trial court sustained the state’s objection to defense counsel’s attempt to introduce the statement through Harmon. During the bench conference, the trial court indicated that Harmon’s attorney would not be able to lay a proper foundation for admission of the statement through Harmon. When the court said Harmon could “testify as to why he did something,” the court was also saying that Harmon could not repeat the statement to the jury, and hence defense counsel’s response, “No. I know. I know he doesn’t need to say it. All right.” Since the court had already ruled the statement inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant, it would have been futile, and even discourteous, for counsel to belabor the issue at that point. See Tucker v. Allstate Ins. Co., 842 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Layman v. State, 728 So.2d 814, 817 (Fla. 5th

A: holding an issue not raised to the family court is not preserved for appellate review
B: holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  
C: holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review
D: holding that under the circumstances of the courts former rulings the issue for review was adequately preserved
D.