Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. Andrew Michael Gosciminski appeals his conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of death for the murder of Joan Loughman in Fort Pierce. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons stated below, we affirm both the conviction and the sentence. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Gosciminski was indicted, tried, and convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon, burglary of a dwelling with an assault or battery, and the first-degree murder of Joan Loughman. Loughman was bludgeoned and stabbed and her throat was cut in her father’s residence on Hutchinson Island in Fort Pierce on September 24, 2002. A number of jewelry items, including a two-carat diamond ring, were taken from Loughman. Gosciminski was sentenced to death for Loughman’s murder in 2005. On appeal, this Court reversed the convictions and the sentences and remanded for a new trial. Gosciminski v. State, 994 So.2d 1018 (Fla.2008). We concluded that several rulings by the trial court relating to questioning by the prosecutor and the admission of hearsay statements constituted prejudicial error that denied Gosciminski a fair trial. Id. at 1027-28. The evidence presented at Gosciminski’s retrial established the following facts. Joan Loughman flew down to Fort Pierce from Connecticut on September 13, 2002, in order to arrange for her father, Frank Vala, to move into an assisted living facility. Loughman stayed at her father’s residence during her visit to Fort Pierce. As was her custom, Loughman wore all of her jewelry daily. This jewelry included a two-carat diamond ring and several other rings, several bracelets, including a diamond tennis bracelet, and earrings with diamonds and emeralds. Gosciminski was the director of marketing at Lyford Cove, an assisted living facility. After Loughman met with Goscimin-ski, her father was admitted to Lyford Cove by Gosciminski on September 18, 2002. The day before the father’s admission Gosciminski went to Vala’s home to help Loughman move Vala’s belongings and furniture to Lyford Cove. However, after being at Lyford Cove for just one night, Vala had to be transferred to the hospital. Vala did not return to Lyford Cove and was subsequently transferred to hospice on September 24, 2002. Lough-man arranged to meet Gosciminski at Ly-ford Cove on the evening of September 23, 2002, in order to pick up her father’s belongings. Gosciminski carried Vala’s suitcase to Loughman’s car. That suitcase was still present in Loughman’s rental car, which was parked in the driveway of her father’s house, when the police came to investigate her murder on the evening of September 24. On the morning of September 24, 2002, Loughman spoke with her twin sister, Janet Vala-Terry, using the telephone at her father’s house. This telephone conversation lasted five minutes and ended at 8:47 a.m. when Loughman told her sister that she had to hang up because someone was at the front door. Loughman did not say who was at the door. Loughman was found dead in the bedroom of her father’s home on the evening of September 24, 2002, by her sister Janet, her brother, and her brother’s wife, who had flown down to Florida in order to meet Loughman at the hospice where Vala had been transferred. Loughman had plans to fly back to Connecticut on September 25, 2002. On the morning of September 24, 2002, Gosciminski was scheduled to attend a staff meeting at Lyford Cove at 8:00 a.m. However, according to his cell phone records, at 8:15 a.m. Gosciminski called Lois Bosworth, one of the corporate directors of Lyford Cove, to inform her that he would not be able to attend the staff meeting because he was going to Life Care Center in Fort Pierce to make a presentation that morning. Gosciminski arrived at Lyford Cove shortly after lunch on that day. Upon arriving, he met with Debra Flynn, the executive director of the facility, and Nicole Rizzolo, the administrative assistant to Debra Flynn, and showed them a two-carat diamond ring which he removed from a tissue or napkin in his pocket. Gosci-minski had talked about buying a ring for his girlfriend, Debra Thomas, for some time before the murder. Flynn testified that when Gosciminski arrived at Lyford Cove around 1:30 p.m. on the day of the murder he appeared freshly scrubbed and his hair was slick and freshly combed. Flynn also testified that the ring Gosciminski showed her was a white or platinum band with a round diamond center stone and diamond baguettes on each side. Flynn also testified that the ring looked old and dirty and had “something black” on it. Gosciminski also talked to Flynn and Rizzolo about other jewelry he had for Thomas, including a tennis bracelet. Rizzolo testified that Goscimin-ski came to work sometime after lunch and that he looked like he had just showered and his skin was “scrubbed pink.” Gosci-minski also showed Rizzolo the ring and mentioned a tennis bracelet. On cross-examination, defense counsel pointed to Rizzolo’s deposition in which she had stated that Gosciminski had shown her the ring before the day of Loughman’s murder. Rizzolo stated that although she had said that in her deposition, she was sure that Gosciminski had shown her the ring after Loughman’s murder. Until a short time before the murder, Gosciminski was dating and living with Debra Thomas. Debra Thomas started having an affair with Ben Thomas in July 2002. At that time, Ben Thomas had been married to Deborah Pelletier for five years and lived with Pelletier in a home on Import Drive in Port St. Lucie. Around the last week of July 2002, Debra Thomas and Ben Thomas moved into the house on Import Drive. One week later, both Debra Thomas and Ben Thomas moved out and Deborah Pelletier moved back into the house. Ben Thomas moved to another house by himself and Debra Thomas moved back with Gosciminski. During the investigation, Detective Thomas Hickox learned that Gosciminski had been with Loughman the evening before the murder. On October 1, 2002, Detective Hickox went to Lyford Cove to talk to Debra Flynn and Gosciminski. On October 2, 2002, Detective Hickox called Gosciminski to the police station for a recorded interview, in which Gosciminski participated voluntarily. At the same time, two other officers were sent to the new home of Debra Thomas and Goscimin-ski to question Thomas about Loughman’s murder. The detectives asked Thomas about the engagement ring Gosciminski had given her. Thomas stated that it was the same engagement ring Gosciminski had given her during their previous engagement in 2001. At trial, Thomas testified that she had not told the detectives the truth about the ring because she was afraid. She also testified that after the officers left, she got a phone call from Gosciminski stating that they had to get rid of the ring because it was “hot.” After Gosciminski returned home, he took the ring and went out toward the beach. Thomas has not seen the ring since that day. Gosciminski was arrested on October 3, 2002, and indicted for the crimes on October 22, 2002. A few weeks later, Deborah Pelletier’s father found a bag of jewelry in the shed behind Pelletier’s house on Import Drive. The jewelry, which was found inside a Geoffrey Beene cologne pouch, included two sets of earrings, a ring, and a diamond and emerald tennis bracelet. The jewelry was identified as the jewelry owned by Loughman and missing from her body after she was murdered. Pelletier testified that in the beginning of August Gosciminski had come over to her Import Drive house several times a week in order to discuss the affair between Debra Thomas and Ben Thomas. Gosciminski also went to Pelletier’s house sometime in August when Pelletier’s water was not working. Gosciminski had accompanied Pelletier to fix something near the shed where the jewelry was later found. Pelletier also testified that on one occasion after October 2, 2002, but before the jewelry was found, Ben Thomas came over to the house with a group of friends to remove his belongings from the house and garage. Pelletier had visited Gosciminski in jail. When Pelletier told him about the jewelry found in her shed, Gosciminski said “it’s over, I’m done” and told Pelletier not to visit him again. At trial, the State called numerous witnesses, including detectives who had examined the crime scene and who were involved in the investigation, and Lough-man’s family members who knew about the jewelry she wore and who had talked to her while she was in Florida. The State also called witnesses who had seen the ring that Gosciminski gave Debra Thomas on the evening of September 24, 2002, and who had identified the ring they saw in a lineup. The detectives who were involved with the investigation testified that they took fingerprints from the Vala residence as well as both of Gosciminski’s residences and his truck, but did not find any matching fingerprints or any other scientific or forensic evidence to link Gosciminski to the crime. Debra Thomas testified that on the morning of September 24, 2002, Goscimin-ski left their home sometime between 7 and 8 a.m. and came back home around lunch time. She testified that she was not sure exactly what time Gosciminski came home because she was not aware that he had returned home as he did not enter through the front door. She stated that it could have been between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. Thomas first noticed Gosciminski was home when she saw him in the master bathroom. She saw Gosciminski washing up at the bathroom sink and noticed that he had blood on the right side of his arm. She also saw a pile of Gosciminski’s clothes on the floor that were soiled with blood. When Thomas questioned Gosciminski about the bloody clothes, he explained that he had gone to collect some money for a friend in West Palm Beach and had to “rough some guy up.” On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Thomas about her deposition statements regarding the time Gosciminski came home. In her deposition, Thomas had stated that Gosci-minski came home around 1 p.m. and left at 3 p.m. Thomas responded that defense counsel had badgered her into stating this time frame at the deposition and that she was not sure about the exact time of Gosci-minski’s arrival, but it was around lunchtime. Thomas also testified that Goscimin-ski gave her an engagement ring on the evening of September 24, 2002. She described the ring as a large diamond with baguettes on each side set in a white gold or platinum band. She described the condition of the ring as being rather dull, as if it needed to be cleaned. Nextel engineer Juan Portillo testified at the trial about Gosciminski’s cell phone activity and created a cell phone tower diagram, which indicated the area in which Gosciminski was located during his phone calls on the morning of September 24, 2002. Gosciminski’s cell phone records indicated that he had cell phone activity between 6:31 a.m. and 8:25 a.m. His last call at 8:25 a.m. was an inbound call that lasted twelve minutes, eleven seconds. There was no activity on his phone from 8:37 a.m. until 9:12 a.m. According to the cell tower diagram and which cell tower the call hit, Gosciminski received a call at 9:12 a.m. while he was located in an area close to the Vala residence where Lough-man was murdered. Two other phone calls, one at 9:27 a.m. when Gosciminski accessed his voicemail and one at 9:28 a.m. when he made an outbound call, also hit the cell tower close to the Vala residence. The next phone call at 10:23 a.m. hit a cell tower close to the Harbor Federal Bank in Palm City. The evidence also showed that on the morning of the murder Gosciminski made a cash deposit of $430 at this particular bank at 10:08 a.m. The next phone call at 10:36 a.m. hit a cell tower in the vicinity of where Loughman’s fanny pack was later found. Evidence also showed that a fifty-seven dollar check made out to Goseimin-ski’s mother was deposited by Gosciminski at 11:04 a.m. at another Harbor Federal Bank located at Darwin Square. The last two phone calls at 11:29 a.m. and 11:39 a.m. hit cell towers in the vicinity of where Gosciminski lived. Associate medical examiner Dr. Linda Rush O’Neill testified in the place of Dr. Charles Diggs, the medical examiner who had conducted the autopsy and testified at the first trial. In preparation for her testimony, Dr. O’Neill reviewed the medical examiner’s file, which included the autopsy report, diagrams, and notes, the testimony and deposition of Dr. Diggs, the crime scene photographs, and the autopsy photographs. According to Dr. O’Neill’s medical testimony, Loughman suffered three different types of injuries: blunt force trauma bruising and lacerations, incise or stab wounds, and abrasions or scraping. The fatal injury was a cut to Loughman’s throat with a knife or knife-like object that severed the left jugular vein and caused her to bleed out. Lough-man was first attacked in the hallway, as indicated by blood in the hallway and her eyeglasses that were apparently knocked from her face. She was then dragged into a bedroom by her feet, where she was severely bludgeoned with an ashtray stand statue, stabbed (possibly with sharp pieces of the glass ashtray statue based on a piece of glass that was removed from the back wound during the autopsy), and cut in the throat. Loughman also suffered lacerations and bruising to her face and head, fractures to the bones of her face, including her jaw from which four teeth were dislodged by the root. The dislodged teeth indicated that significant force was used in the blunt trauma to the head. Loughman also had stab wounds on the back of her neck, her right back torso, and her left chest. The stab wound to Lough-man’s back torso perforated the right lung. At some point in the attack, Loughman suffered a defensive wound to her left hand, indicating that she was conscious during some of the attack. The variety of wounds and their placement on both the front and back of Loughman’s body also indicated that she was conscious and struggling with her attacker. The bludgeoning injuries were consistent with someone using the ashtray statue that was found at the scene as a weapon. The stabbing or sharp force wounds could have been inflicted with a knife or one of the broken pieces of glass from the statue. The stabbing wounds were “somewhat irregular” and not like the margins that would occur with a stab wound from an ice pick or knife. Dr. O’Neill opined that the defensive wound on Loughman’s left hand was caused by a portion of the broken statue. The body temperature of the victim, the rigor mortis, and the livor mortis were consistent with Loughman being killed between 8:47 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. on September 24. Based on the scene and the injuries to the victim, Loughman’s attacker would have blood on his clothing and body. By an interrogatory response on the verdict, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was both premeditated murder and felony murder. After a two-day penalty phase, the jury recommended a death sentence by a vote of nine to three. Both the State and Gos-ciminski were permitted to present additional evidence as to the appropriate sentence at a Spencer hearing. Gosciminski also presented a written statement to the court. The trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and imposed a death sentence. The trial court found three aggravating factors were applicable: the murder was cold, calculated and premeditated (CCP) (given great weight); the murder was heinous, atrocious, or cruel (HAC) (given great weight); and the murder was committed during the commission of a robbery or burglary (given great weight), which was merged with the committed for pecuniary gain aggravator. The trial court found one statutory mitigating circumstance: Gosciminski had no significant history of criminal activity (given some weight). The trial court found thirteen nonstatutory mitigating circumstances which were given little to moderate weight. The trial court determined that the mitigating factors did not outweigh the aggravating circumstances and sentenced Gosciminski to death on the count of first-degree murder and to life in prison for burglary and robbery. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS On appeal, Gosciminski raises eighteen claims of error. The State also raises a claim regarding the proportionality of the death sentence in this case. We conclude that Gosciminski’s claims are without merit, with the exception of Issue 2 regarding the scope of cross-examination. However, as discussed below, we conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. We also conclude that the death sentence is proportionally warranted in this case. We address each claim in turn below. I. Testimonial and Evidentiary Rulings A number of the issues raised by Gosciminski regard testimonial and eviden-tiary rulings by the trial court. Issues 1, 3, 7, and 10 through 14 involve evidence that Gosciminski contends was improperly admitted. An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s determination that evidence is relevant and admissible absent an abuse of discretion. See Victorino v. State, 23 So.3d 87, 98 (Fla.2009). Relevant evidence is generally admissible unless precluded by a specific rule of exclusion. Id. (citing § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2004)). 1. Evidence of “Bad Conduct” In Issue 1, Gosciminski asserts that it was improper to allow Debra Thomas to testify that she moved back with him in August 2002 because he threatened to harm her, her family, and Ben Thomas. The defense objected to this questioning, noting that there had been no Williams rule notice and arguing the information was irrelevant to the charges against Gos-ciminski. The trial court overruled the defense objection, finding that this evidence was intricately intertwined with the sequence of events that preceded the murder and explained the motive for the murder. The trial court also stated that the lack of Williams rule notice was not of consequence, that the threats would not be made a feature of the trial, and the parties should move on. Because Thomas’s answer had been interrupted by the defense objection, the State asked her again why she had moved back in with Gosciminski and she responded, “Because I didn’t want anyone to get hurt after he threatened me and my family and Ben.” The State then moved on to other questions about the sequence of events that preceded the murder. There are two categories under which evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts will be admissible — similar fact evidence, otherwise known as Williams rule evidence, and dissimilar fact evidence. Victorino v. State, 23 So.3d 87, 98 (Fla.2009) (citing Zack v. State, 753 So.2d 9, 16 (Fla.2000)). The requirements and limitations of section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2009), govern similar fact evidence while the general rule of relevancy set forth in section 90.402 governs dissimilar fact evidence. Id. at 98-99. This Court has explained the test for dissimilar fact evidence as follows: [EJvidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence. It is admissible under section 90.402 because “it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue.... [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.” Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994) (quoting Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.17 (1993 ed.)). Dissimilar fact evidence of uncharged misconduct — which is governed by section 90.402’s general rule of relevancy— is admissible to “establish ] the relevant context in which the [charged] criminal acts occurred.” Caruso v. State, 645 So.2d 389, 394 (Fla.1994). “[T]o prove its case, the State is entitled to present evidence which paints an accurate picture of the events surrounding the crimes charged.” Griffin, 639 So.2d at 970. Accordingly, evidence of uncharged misconduct is relevant when its admission is “necessary to adequately describe the events leading up to” the commission of the charged offense. Id. The evidence at issue here explained Gosciminski’s decision to kill Loughman for her jewelry and showed the sequence of events leading up to the murder. See McGirth v. State, 48 So.3d 777, 786-87 (Fla.2010), cert. denied, _ U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2100, 179 L.Ed.2d 898 (2011) (finding evidence about the defendant’s drug-based relationship with the victims’ daughter was relevant and inextricably intertwined with the crimes charged). Through Thomas’s testimony at the instant trial and Gosci-minski’s videotaped testimony from the 2005 trial, the jury learned that the pair had an on-again off-again relationship for at least six months preceding the murder. Thomas moved out of Gosciminski’s home in April 2002, June 2002, and August 2002, but returned each time. Through this testimony and the testimony of other witnesses, the jury also learned that Debra Thomas and Ben Thomas met sometime in the spring of 2002 and lived together for about one month in July and August. Gosciminski was aware of this relationship between Debra and Ben and visited Ben’s wife Deborah Pelletier regularly for several weeks in August 2002 to get more information about Ben, discuss the relationship between Ben and Debra, tell Pelletier what he knew about the activities of Ben and Debra, and talk about his efforts to get Debra to move back with him. Debra Thomas also testified that when she moved away from Gosciminski, he sent her flowers and gifts of jewelry to convince her to move back with him. Thomas also stated that Gosciminski made false statements and created false documents to convince her that he was very wealthy. Goscimin-ski was aware of Debra’s relationship with Ben Thomas and was competing with Ben to get Debra back. Gosciminski made statements to many individuals, including Debra Thomas, that he was going to get Debra a two-carat diamond engagement ring. The threat testimony was part of the progression of Gosciminski’s plan to get Debra back. He started with flowers and small gifts of jewelry, progressed to getting her a new car and a home on the beach, made promises of a two-carat diamond engagement ring, and then made threats. All of this behavior explains Gos-ciminski’s motive for the murder. See Victorino, 23 So.3d at 100 (finding evidence of fight and shooting at a park was properly admitted as dissimilar fact evidence because it presented a complete picture of the defendant’s successive and violent attempts to get his property back which culminated in the murders of six individuals). Moreover, the threat testimony did not become a feature of Gosciminski’s trial. Thus, we reject Gosciminski’s claim that the threat evidence constitutes Williams rule evidence subject to the requirements of section 90.404(2). We also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Debra Thomas’s testimony as relevant evidence pursuant to section 90.402 in order to establish the context in which the charged criminal acts occurred. Gosciminski also contends that it was error to allow Debra Thomas to testify that he intercepted her mail, thereby causing her not to obtain her nursing license in Arizona (Issue 3). Gosciminski argues that he was prejudiced by this evidence of bad character and an uncharged crime. In discussing her relationship with Gos-ciminski, Thomas testified that after moving back with Gosciminski she took a trip to Arizona to apply for a nursing license with the intent of moving there permanently. Thomas gave Gosciminski’s address to the licensing board, but she never received her license because, according to Thomas, her “mail was intercepted.” When the State asked if Gosciminski was the only person living at the address at the time, the defense objected on the basis that the answer would be speculation and constituted bad character evidence because intercepting United States mail is a federal offense. The defense also moved for a mistrial. The trial court overruled the speculation objection, finding that it was within Thomas’s knowledge who was living in the house she shared with Gosciminski. Thomas had already testified that only she and Gosci-minski had lived in the house in the preceding five months. As the trial court explained, people generally know who is living in their house even when they go on a trip. The court ruled that the objection to the “intercepting mail” comment was untimely because the defense had not made a contemporaneous objection to that testimony. However, despite the untimeliness of the objection, the court still allowed Gosciminski’s counsel to argue the bad character objection. The court noted that Gosciminski lived at the home and could properly accept any mail that arrived there. When the court inquired if the defense wanted the State to clarify this matter through further questioning of the witness, the defense declined the offer. Finally, the trial court concluded that neither comment required a mistrial. A trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 852 (Fla.1997). Discretion is abused only “when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Huff v. State, 569 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Fla.1990); see also Frances v. State, 970 So.2d 806, 813 (Fla.2007). The granting of a motion for mistrial is not based on whether the error is “prejudicial.” Rather, the standard requires that a mistrial be granted only “when an error is so prejudicial as to vitiate the entire trial,” England v. State, 940 So.2d 389, 401-02 (Fla.2006), such that a mistrial is “necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial.” McGirth v. State, 48 So.3d 777, 790 (Fla.2010). “It has been long established and continuously adhered to that the power to declare a mistrial and discharge the jury should be exercised with great care and caution and should be done only in cases of absolute necessity.” England, 940 So.2d at 402 (quoting Thomas v. State, 748 So.2d 970, 980 (Fla.1999)). Therefore, “[i]n order for [Debra’s testimony] to merit a new trial, the comments must either deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial, materially contribute to the conviction, be so harmful or fundamentally tainted as to require a new trial, or be so inflammatory that they might have influenced the jury to reach a more severe verdict than that it would have otherwise.” Salazar v. State, 991 So.2d 364, 372 (Fla.2008) (quoting Spencer v. State, 645 So.2d 377, 383 (Fla.1994)). Neither of the comments at issue here rose to that level. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on the comments or its denial of Gosciminski’s motion for a mistrial. In Issue 7, Gosciminski argues that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of Joan Cox that Gosciminski noticed her diamond ring when she met him in June 2001. The State proffered the direct testimony of Cox about an encounter she had with Gosciminski when she was seeking an assisted living facility for her mother. Cox stated that Gosciminski invited her and her granddaughter to have lunch at the facility and during lunch he noticed and made a favorable comment about Cox’s diamond ring. Defense counsel objected that this evidence was irrelevant and was inadmissible Williams rule evidence for which the State had not given the required statutory notice. The trial court ruled that Cox’s testimony was not Williams rule evidence because it involved an “innocuous” remark, not a collateral crime. The court also ruled that the testimony was relevant because “[i]t shows the knowledge of rings, an awareness of rings” and “relates back” to Gosciminski’s statement to the police that he did not notice clients’ jewelry because it was irrelevant to his job. Thus, the trial court admitted Cox’s testimony into evidence. Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that “[similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.” When the state intends to offer similar fact evidence of other criminal offenses, it is required to give notice no fewer than ten days before trial of its intent to rely on Williams rule evidence and provide a written statement of the acts or offenses it intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. § 90.404(2)(c) 1, Fla. Stat. (2009). However, no notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal. Id. In his 2002 interview with the police, which was introduced into evidence by the State, Gosciminski stated that he had no clue whether Loughman had a lot of money. When asked if he noticed the numerous diamond and emerald bracelets and other expensive jewelry that Loughman wore all of the time, Gosciminski replied that he “didn’t notice stuff like that” because it was totally irrelevant to his job. Cox’s testimony that Gosciminski did in fact notice jewelry and even commented on her diamond ring was relevant to Gosci-minski’s statement to the contrary. Thus, the trial court did not err in admitting this testimony that was relevant to the case. 2. Cell Phone Tower Evidence In Issues 10 and 11 Gosciminski contends that the trial court erred and also abused its discretion in allowing testimony and exhibits regarding the area of coverage of cell phone towers in the Fort Pierce area. The State sought to present this evidence to prove that Gosciminski was in certain locations at certain times during the morning of the murder. This proof was based on the phone calls sent and received on Gosciminski’s cell phone and the signals received by particular cell towers. “The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion.” Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 188 (Fla.2005). The basic principles of cellular technology have been widely accepted and admitted into evidence. See, e.g., Gordon v. State, 863 So.2d 1215, 1219 (Fla.2003) (stating that testimony about cell phone records and comparing them to locations on cell site maps was not expert testimony and was properly admitted); Perez v. State, 980 So.2d 1126, 1131-32 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (ruling that cell phone records, cell site maps, and testimony explaining them was properly admitted and did not constitute expert testimony); Pullin v. State, 272 Ga. 747, 534 S.E.2d 69, 71 (2000) (ruling that expert testimony pinpointing the location from which the defendant’s cellular telephone calls were placed was admissible). During the State’s case-in-chief, the State introduced the testimony of Nextel engineer Juan Portillo regarding maps of the cell towers, the coverage areas of the towers, propagation information, and specific cell phone calls made or received by Gosciminski. Portillo discussed Goscimin-ski’s cell phone records for September 24, 2002, which were admitted without objection. Portillo explained how he developed the diagrams showing the cell tower locations with their sector coverage and propagation for each sector. Portillo also testified about where Gosciminski’s calls had originated based on the sector that picked up the signal first. When the State sought to introduce the diagrams into evidence, the defense objected that the diagrams were misleading and confusing and were hearsay unless Portillo knew from personal experience where the towers were located. In a sidebar conference, the trial court noted that the defense had not made a contemporaneous objection to Portillo’s oral testimony about the diagrams and the information contained on them. The court also noted that cell phone records and cell tower site information have been routinely admitted in Florida for over fifteen years and that under Florida case law it was not necessary for an expert to testify about these matters because such information is understood by the average juror who owns a cell phone. The trial court concluded that that the defense objection went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. The court ruled that the diagrams were not misleading or hearsay and allowed them to be admitted. Later when Portillo was questioned by the State about locations that would hit the sector two of the Faber Cove tower, the defense objected and argued that the conditions had changed since 2002 and the time when Portillo made his pretrial measurements. After the court confirmed that Portillo would be rendering his opinion regarding the coverage and power of the tower in September 2002, the court overruled the defense objection and again ruled that the objection went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. We agree with the trial court’s rulings that the diagrams and the testimony relating to them were properly admitted. The testimony and diagrams regarding the cell tower coverage were relevant to Gosciminski’s possible location during the time of Loughman’s murder on the morning of September 24, 2002. See Gordon v. State, 863 So.2d 1215, 1219 (Fla.2003) (finding that testimony on the cell phone record and cell site map was useful in assisting the jury to understand the phone records). The defense had an opportunity to cast doubt on the weight of the evidence during its cross-examination of the witness as to the probability and likelihood of the cell tower coverage. Gosciminski also objected that Portillo did not have sufficient data regarding the cell towers at the time of the crime to render an opinion about the reach of the cell towers or their location. Contrary to this argument, Portillo testified about his experience and training, which included twenty years working as a radio frequency engineer in telecommunications, a degree in electrical engineering and a number of continuing education courses, and being in charge of maintenance and coverage of Nextel cell towers for the southeast region of Florida for the preceding three years. Portillo also testified at length about the technology and science relating to cell phones and towers. Portillo reported the results of his measurements and offered his opinion as to which tower would have picked up Gosciminski’s phone calls in September 2002. The defense was able to thoroughly cross-examine Portillo about factors that could affect the tower signals, thereby calling the jury’s attention to the weight to be afforded Portillo’s opinion testimony. The defense also presented its own telecommunications expert who offered a different opinion as to the coverage of the cell towers. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Gosciminski’s objections and allowing into evidence the cell tower diagrams and testimony relating to them. 3. Driving Test Results In Issue 12, Gosciminski argues that the court erred in allowing testimony about the time it took law enforcement officers to drive to and from certain locations, including the crime scene, the banks where Gosciminski made the deposits on the day in question, and the area where Loughman’s fanny pack was found. Gosci-minski contends this testimony should not have been admitted because the officers did not know the traffic, weather or road conditions on September 24, 2002, and the officers may not have followed the route that Gosciminski took. Under Florida law, all relevant evidence, defined as that tending to prove or disprove a material fact, is admissible unless otherwise provided by law. See §§ 90.401, 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2009). Relevant evidence is inadmissible, however, where the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. See § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2009). The admissibility of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the trial court’s determination will not be disturbed on appellate review absent a clear abuse of that discretion. See Hildwin v. State, 951 So.2d 784 (Fla.2006); Ray v. State, 755 So.2d 604 (Fla.2000). However, even if it is found that the trial court erred and abused its discretion, the error is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Brooks v. State, 918 So.2d 181, 194 (Fla.2005) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1135 (Fla.1986)), receded from on other grounds by State v. Sturdivant, 94 So.3d 434, 436 (Fla.2012). Gosciminski objected to all of the driving test testimony on the basis of relevance and failure to lay a proper foundation as to the traffic and road conditions on the morning of September 24, 2002. The trial court overruled all of the objections, noting that the time it takes to drive the most direct and logical route between these places was relevant to the question of whether it was within the ability of the defendant to cover this distance within a certain period of time. The court also ruled that the foundation objections went to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility, and the defense could question the witnesses about these matters on cross-examination. Gosciminski argues that for the driving test evidence to be admissible, the test had to be conducted under conditions substantially similar to those which prevailed at the time of the incident. See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ross, 660 So.2d 1109, 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Dempsey v. Shell Oil Co., 589 So.2d 373, 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). However, these eases cited by Gosciminski involved expert witnesses conducting scientific experiments and providing opinion testimony based on those experiments. In a case involving the same type of driving test evidence, the district court noted that the defense could have explored the perceived weaknesses in such timeline results through voir dire of the witness or on cross-examination. See Pierre v. State, 990 So.2d 565, 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In the instant case, the officers were not conducting a scientific experiment and were not testifying as expert witnesses. The officers explained the routes they took, the speed they traveled, and the conditions they encountered. Defense counsel cross-examined them about their knowledge of the road conditions, the weather, and other factors that existed on September 24, 2002, and was able to elicit that the officers had little or no knowledge of those conditions. The routes taken by the officers were based on the route that Gosciminski testified he took on the day of the murder or reasonable routes based on the cell phone records. The officers’ testimony regarding the time required to drive to and from certain locations was relevant to show that Gosci-minski was capable of completing the crime within the known time-frame. Further, the officers neither testified as expert witnesses nor offered opinion testimony. The officers merely recounted their routes and the time it took them to drive this distance. See Johnson v. State, 442 So.2d 193, 196 (Fla.1983) (explaining that rule of “essential similarity” between test conditions and actual conditions is an issue of the weight to be given to the evidence rather than its relevance or materiality). Moreover, as the trial court noted here, such time and distance figures are facts that are easily ascertainable from sources like MapQuest, which are not reasonably subject to dispute, and the court could actually take judicial notice of such information. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony regarding the driving times. 4. Documentary and Photographic Evidence In Issue 18, Gosciminski contends that it was error to admit a Walgreen’s cash receipt produced by Ben Thomas because the receipt was not properly authenticated. The State presented the testimony of Ben Thomas regarding his whereabouts on the morning of the murder in order to rebut Gosciminski’s theory that Ben Thomas had committed the murder. Thomas testified that he ran a number of errands in the Fort Pierce area on the day of the murder and then drove to Miami in order to catch a 4 p.m. flight to Atlanta. Thomas also testified that he did not fly back to Miami until the next day and then conducted several presentations for his employer in Miami on September 26. Thomas drove back to the Fort Pierce area two days after the murder. The State presented a number of receipts that corroborated Thomas’s account of his activities, including a cash receipt from a Walgreens store on Federal Highway in Fort Pierce, which was dated September 24, 2002, and time-stamped at 9:19 a.m. However, the receipt was missing the register number, cashier number, and the transaction number. The defense argued that this receipt should not be admitted because it had not been authenticated by a Walgreens representative. Section 90.901, Florida Statutes (2009), requires the authentication or identification of a document prior to its admission into evidence. However, the requirements of section 90.901 “are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.” § 90.901, Fla. Stat. (2009); see also State v. Love, 691 So.2d 620, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Evidence may be authenticated by examination of its appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics in conjunction with the circumstances. Coday v. State, 946 So.2d 988, 1000 (Fla.2006) (finding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that defendant’s confession was authentic because there was an abundance of evidence to support finding that the signed, written statement was drafted by the defendant). Once a prima facie showing of authenticity is made, the evidence comes in, and the ultimate question of authenticity is for the jury. See Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 901.1, at 1092-93 (2013 ed.). Here, the trial court ruled that the Wal-greens receipt was admissible because it was printed on paper with a distinctive green Walgreens logo watermark, the Walgreens’ return policy was printed on the back of the receipt, the front of the receipt showed no evidence of tampering, and the time and date-stamp matched Thomas’s account of when he made the purchase at Walgreens. These distinctive characteristics of the receipt in conjunction with the other circumstances, i.e., the trail of documentary evidence that supported Thomas’s testimony about his activities and whereabouts on the morning of the murder, were adequate authentication. Thus, we conclude that the receipt was properly admitted. In Issue 14, Gosciminski contends that the trial court erred in admitting two photographs of Loughman wearing the jewelry that was taken during the robbery-murder. While Gosciminski objected to the admission of the photograph depicting Loughman holding a baby and standing next to a small child and a young woman, he raised had no objection to the admission of the second photograph that depicted Loughman standing next to a man. Thus, only the admission of the first photograph was preserved for our appellate review. Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding the admissibility of photographic evidence, and this discretion will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse. See Pangburn v. State, 661 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Fla.1995); Vargas v. State, 751 So.2d 665, 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). A photograph’s admissibility is based on its relevancy, not its necessity. See Pope v. State, 679 So.2d 710, 713 (Fla.1996). If a photograph is relevant to an issue at trial, either independently or to corroborate other evidence, it is admissible unless the probative value is outweighed by undue prejudice. Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 323, 327 (Fla.1995); Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 906 (Fla.1981). Relevancy requires that the photo of the deceased victim be probative of an issue that is in dispute. The photograph in question was admitted to depict the jewelry that Loughman wore. The photograph corroborated witness testimony that Loughman wore all of her jewelry daily. Further, the photograph was relevant to show what jewelry Gosciminski could have seen when he met Loughman, which was an issue in the case. The jury’s attention was directed solely to the jewelry. The presence of the family members was not mentioned when the photograph was published to the jury, nor was it made a feature of the trial. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this photograph in to evidence. II. Admissibility of Polygraph Test Results In Issue 9, Gosciminski argues that the trial court improperly excluded the results of his polygraph examination, which he claims were exculpatory evidence. Specifically, he contends that the trial court erred in its ruling as to the relevant scientific community and its interpretation of the testimony of the State and defense experts. Polygraph evidence is generally inadmissible in Florida. See Duest v. State, 12 So.3d 734, 746 (Fla.2009); Walsh v. State, 418 So.2d 1000, 1002 (Fla.1982) (“[P]olygraph evidence is inadmissible in an adversary proceeding in this state.”). However, as scientific discovery changes or advances, Florida courts apply the Frye test in order to determine the reliability of new or novel scientific evidence. See Brim v. State, 695 So.2d 268, 271 (Fla.1997). As the Frye court explained: Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in this twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). As we explained in Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164, 1166-67 (Fla.1995), the admission into evidence of expert opinion testimony concerning a new or novel scientific principle is a four-step process. First, the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue under section 90.702, Florida Statutes. Id. at 1167. Second, the trial judge must decide whether the expert’s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” Ramirez, 651 So.2d at 1167 (quoting Frye, 293 F. at 1014). Third, the trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion on the subject at issue. Ramirez, 651 So.2d at 1167. Fourth, the judge may allow the expert to render an opinion, and it is then up to the jury to determine the credibility of that opinion. Id.; Wuornos v. State, 644 So.2d 1000, 1010 (Fla.1994) (“[T]he finder of fact is not necessarily required to accept [expert] testimony.”). The second step, concerning whether to allow expert testimony on a new or novel subject, is especially important to the process. The principal inquiry under the Frye test is whether the scientific theory or discovery from which an expert derives an opinion is reliable. Polygraph evidence has, as a matter of law, long been inadmissible as evidence in Florida. See Kaminski v. State, 63 So.2d 339 (Fla.1952). The last time its admissibility was expressly decided by this Court was in Delap v. State, 440 So.2d 1242, 1247 (Fla.1983), in which we concluded that polygraph testing had not “gained such reliability and scientific recognition in Florida as to warrant its admissibility.” This rule of inadmissibility “reflects state judgment that polygraph evidence is too unreliable or too capable of misinterpretation to be admitted at trial.” Id. However, we did recognize that the parties may waive their evidentiary objection. Id. The use of a polygraph examination as evidence is premised on the waiver by both parties of evidentiary objections as to lack of scientific reliability. Id. In utilizing the Frye test, the burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle and the testing procedures used to apply that principle to the facts at hand. The trial judge has the sole responsibility to determine this question. The general acceptance under the Frye test must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Ramirez, 651 So.2d at 1168. Just as important as the burden of proof is the fact that the hearing must be conducted in a fair manner. Id. This is especially important in a criminal trial where the defendant is guaranteed certain constitutional rights, not the least of which is the due process right to present witnesses in one’s behalf. Id. The appropriate standard of review of a Frye issue is de novo. See Hadden v. State, 690 So.2d 573, 579 (Fla.1997). Thus, an appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling as a matter of law, rather than under an abuse-of-discretion standard. When undertaking such a review, the appellate court should consider the issue of general acceptance at the time of the appeal rather than at the time of trial. Id.; Hayes v. State, 660 So.2d 257, 262-64 (Fla.1995) (finding a Frye test not properly applied in light of a scientific report issued after the trial); Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9, 18 (Fla.1985) (finding that in a case in which the trial court failed to conduct a Frye hearing, hypnotically refreshed testimony was not shown to be reliable at the time of appeal). An appellate court may examine expert testimony, scientific and legal writings, and judicial opinions in making its determination. See Flanagan v. State, 625 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla.1998) (finding, after an examination of the relevant academic literature and case law, that sex offender profile evidence was not generally accepted). Here, the trial court held a Frye hearing and concluded that Gosciminski did not carry his burden of proof and did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that polygraph test results are generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. At the Frye hearing, Gosciminski presented the testimony of Dr. John Pal-matier, a doctor of social sciences who conducts polygraph examinations and also teaches about the science of polygraphs. Dr. Palmatier testified that polygraph examinations have eighty to ninety percent accuracy and that the relevant scientific community for assessing the acceptance of polygraphs is scientists who are engaged in psycho-physiological research. Dr. Pal-matier also testified that he had administered a polygraph examination to Gosci-minski, which indicated Gosciminski’s truthfulness in declaring that he did not murder or harm Joan Loughman. The State presented the testimony of Dr. Stephen Fienberg, a professor of statistics and computer science at Carnegie Mellon University and the chair of a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. The committee chaired by Dr. Fienberg reviewed the scientific evidence on the polygraph for nineteen months and published a report in 2008 recommending against the use of polygraphs because they are inherently inaccurate. Dr. Fienberg stated that there is considerable consensus in the scientific community that the polygraph is not sufficiently accurate to rely upon for any purpose. Dr. Fienberg also served on another NRC committee in 2008 which concluded that there were no new studies suggesting that measurements from the autonomic nervous system (such as polygraphs) were accurate in detecting deception. Dr. Fienberg also criticized Dr. Palmatier’s methodology in determining the accuracy of polygraphs because it did not include any inconclusive results in the statistics. The parties also submitted six volumes of literature, reports, and other documents relating to polygraphs for the trial court to consider. Following the hearing, the trial court ruled that polygraph results are not generally accepted in the scientific community and cited at length the 2003 report from the NRC committee and Dr. Fienberg’s testimony. The court noted that the defense expert has a vested interest in the theory and had narrowly defined the relevant scientific community to include those with similar vested interests, i.e., those who accept, acknowledge, and use polygraphs. The trial court also noted other scholarly literature that had reached the same conclusion as the NRC committee, namely that polygraph results are not accurate enough to be used as evidence in courts. The trial court concluded that “polygraph examinations are not accepted within the realm of the scientific community” and the defense had “failed to meet its burden of proof for the admission of the polygraph generally.” Gosciminski asserts that Dr. Fien-berg’s grouping ranged far beyond the community of scientists active in the field to which the evidence belongs. This argument, however, is not persuasive. Frye requires more than the testimony of an expert who has a personal stake in the theory or is prone to an institutional bias. Ramirez v. State, 810 So.2d 836, 844 n. 13 (Fla.2001). “[GJeneral scientific recognition requires the testimony of impartial experts or scientists. It is this independent and impartial proof of general scientific acceptability that provides the necessary Frye foundation.” Id. at 851. Based on the evidence presented at the Frye hearing and our examination of the relevant scientific evidence, we agree with the trial court’s ruling that the polygraph test results were inadmissible. III. Limiting Witness Cross-examination In Issues 2 and 6, Gosciminski argues that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of witnesses Debra Thomas and Maureen Reape. As explained below, we find no error regarding the scope of Reape’s cross-examination. We do find that the trial court erred in limiting Gosciminski’s cross-examination of Debra Thomas, but conclude that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Maureen Reape was a friend of Debra Thomas who testified for the State about the engagement ring that Goscimin-ski gave to Thomas. Prior to Reape’s testimony, defense counsel stated his intention to cross-examine Reape about her incarceration in jail for a driving under the influence (DUI) conviction. However, because this is a misdemeanor offense, it could not be the basis for impeaching Reape. See § 90.610, Fla. Stat. (2009)(providing for impeachment based on a witness’s conviction for a crime punishable by more than one year in prison or a crime that involves dishonesty or a false statement). The defense also asserted that Reape’s incarceration was relevant to show that she was biased and trying to gain favor with the State for a possible modification of her sentence or the terms of her probation. While bias is a permissible basis for attacking a witness’s credibility under section 90.608(2), Florida Statutes (2009), there must be some foundation for the claim of bias. Here, Reape’s sentence had been imposed more than sixty days earlier and thus her sentence could not be modified. During the defense’s proffered cross-examination, Reape testified that she had never been convicted of a felony or a crime involving dishonesty, that her DUI conviction was a misdemeanor, and that she did not have a sentence of probation. Thus, there was no proper basis for the defense to impeach Reape’s credibility based on her DUI incarceration. Finally, it is not clear that the defense even preserved this issue for appellate review. During the proffered cross-examination, the court noted that if Reape’s 2009 trial testimony following her DUI convictions was consistent with her 2005 trial testimony which had occurred before she had any DUI convictions, then there would be no bias or motive for the defense to point out. Defense counsel agreed that the proper course was to proceed with Reape’s direct testimony and see if there were any inconsistencies. Defense counsel never called any inconsistencies to the court’s attention and never sought to cross-examine Reape about her incarceration or possible bias for the State. Thus, Gosciminski’s cross-examination of Reape was not improperly limited by the trial court. However, we agree with Gosci-minski that the trial court erred in prohibiting his cross-examination of Debra Thomas about drug and alcohol use (Issue 2). Gosciminski wanted to confront Thomas about her testimony that she had moved back with Gosciminski because he had threatened her and her family. Gosci-minski asserted that it was not Thomas’s decision to move out of their residence, but rather that he made her move out because she had an ongoing drug and alcohol problem. During the defense’s cross-examination of Thomas, the court conducted a sidebar conference regarding this line of questioning. The State asserted that this matter had been ruled on by the court at Gosciminski’s first trial and the evidence had been found irrelevant. Defense counsel noted that evidence regarding Thomas’s drug and alcohol use had been proffered at Gosciminski’s first trial. The parties stipulated that the same evidence would be proffered at this trial as well. At the first trial, the defense proffered the following testimony from Gosciminski about his relationship with Debra Thomas. Gosciminski met Thomas in 2000, and they had broken up and reunited a number of times throughout their relationship. The breakups occurred during times when Thomas was drinking alcohol and using drugs that she obtained from her work. Thomas was addicted to both drugs and alcohol and used multiple substances at the same time; her addiction affected her ability to be truthful; and she lost jobs and had licensing problems because of her addictions. The breakups occurred each time Gosciminski learned that Thomas had relapsed into drug and alcohol use and was lying to him about various things. After each breakup, Thomas would call Gosci-minski, promise that she was sober, and ask to move back with him. During questioning by the State, Gosciminski also asserted that Thomas had been using his credit cards without his permission to purchase beer and other items, had lied about her whereabouts to cover up the time she was spending time with Ben Thomas, and had stolen from Gosciminski. The State objected to the admission of any evidence of drug use by Debra Thomas as irrelevant, improper character evidence, and hearsay. Gosciminski’s defense counsel argued that the proffered evidence would rebut Thomas’s testimony that she only returned to Gosciminski because he had threatened her. Instead, defense counsel argued, Thomas’s return had nothing to do with threats from Gosci-minski, but rather with his tolerance for someone who was an alcohol and drug abuser. Defense counsel also asserted that the proffered evidence would rebut the State’s theory that financial problems were Gosciminski’s motive for committing the robbery. To the contrary, counsel argued, this evidence, showed that it was actually Debra Thomas who was in financial difficulty and who had put Gosciminski into difficulty. The trial court ruled that Gosciminski would be confined to testifying about things he actually saw Debra Thomas do or actions that she had admitted doing. During his testimony at the 2005 trial (which was played to the jury in the instant trial), Gosciminski testi