Is there a reversible error in admitting a recording of prior inconsistent statements made to the police by an unavailable trial witness?

People v. Martinez, supra, 113 Cal.App.4th at page 409 is not to the contrary. In that case, the court held that a recording of prior inconsistent statements made to the police by an unavailable trial witness was not admissible because the recording had not been introduced at the preliminary hearing. The court explained, to be admissible at trial under Evidence Code section 1294, the recording of [the witness's] statement first should have been introduced into evidence at the preliminary hearing. [Citation.] It was not. Instead, [the witness] was asked to review specific excerpts of a transcript of his interview with the police to see if it refreshed his recollection, and the prosecutor read from portions of the transcript to impeach [the witness]. [The detective] who questioned [the witness] also testified at the preliminary hearing that [the witness] had made the statements he denied making. But neither the transcript nor a recording of the interview was introduced as evidence at the preliminary hearing. Thus, while the transcript of [the witness's] preliminary hearing testimony was properly admitted at trial due to his unavailability [citation], the court erred in allowing the jury to hear the actual recording of his statement to the police. (Ibid.)

The Attorney General acknowledges that under section 1294, subdivision (a)(2), the proper procedure would have been to introduce at trial the transcript of the officers' preliminary hearing testimony reflecting the prior inconsistent statements. The Attorney General correctly argues, however, that any error in that regard has been forfeited because defendant failed to object on this ground below. Had he done so, the prosecutor would have presented [the victim's] prior inconsistent statements through the officers' preliminary hearing testimony. [Defendant's] failure to object forfeited any reliance on this error as a basis for reversal because it deprived the prosecution of an opportunity to cure the defect.' (People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749, 777.)

Accordingly, there was no reversible error regarding the admission of the officers' testimony regarding the victim's statements.

3. The matter shall be remanded for resentencing on the section 12022.5 enhancement.