With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proceeding; (2) the party against whom the testimony is being offered was a party in the previous proceeding; (3) the issues in the previous proceeding are similar to those in the instant case; and (4) there is a substantial reason why the original witness is not available. Thompson v. State, 619 So.2d 261, 265 (Fla.1993). Here, the issue in the previous proceeding differed from the issue at hand, and Ramirez did not establish a substantial reason why the original witness was not available. In fact, the witness was not present because Ramirez brought the motion before the start of the trial, instead of properly raising the issue in a motion to suppress and setting the motion for hearing a reasonable amount of time before the trial. See McClain v. State, 411 So.2d 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (<HOLDING>). Ramirez additionally argued that the

A: holding that hospitalization of witnesss wife and his desire to be by her side was not a substantial basis for admitting witnesss testimony from first trial
B: holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted
C: holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility
D: holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error
A.