Crawford v. Washington (2004) 124 S.Ct. 1354 does not preclude admission of an out-of-court statement by a witness where the witness was available for cross-examination and was, in fact, cross-examined on the subject of her out-of-court statements. Here, the complaining witness was not available at trial, and the court admitted her prior hearsay statements via police testimony under Evidence Code section 1370. The court held that the statute was not unconstitutional as applied under Crawford, because defendant’s vigorous cross-examination of the witness at the preliminary hearing rendered her out-of-court statements both trustworthy under section 1370, and constitutionally admissible under Crawford. Furthermore, because these statements were not otherwise inadmissible, Evidence Code section 1109 was not unconstitutional as applied in this case. Finally, the court held that the sentencing court had the authority to alter a previously imposed but suspended sentence following revocation of probation, if the previously imposed term was unauthorized or illegal. However, because the record was unclear as to what the original sentence was or what would have constituted a legal sentence under the circumstances, a remand for resentencing was necessary.