Cited by

and “violate[] the confrontation clause.” Steeprock’s argument, however, misconstrues the Confrontation Clause, which prohibits the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (emphasis added) (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54 (2004)).

(alteration in original) ().

Thus, the Confrontation Clause “prohibits admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (quotation omitted).

(state bears the burden of proving that a statement is not testimonial); (state bears the burden of proving that defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated); (state bears the burden of establishing witness unavailability and consequent necessity of hearsay evidence).

(quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006)).

In another case that same year, : (1) the victim described events as they actually happened and not past events; (2) any “reasonable listener” would conclude that the victim was facing an ongoing emergency; (3) the questions asked and answers given were necessary to resolve a present emergency, rather than only to learn what ha

This is so if the police questioning “relate[s] directly to addressing 5 the emergency.”

Nontestimonial statements arise if police questioning “relate[s] directly to addressing the emergency.”

This is so if the police questioning “relate[s] directly to addressing the emergency.”

a woman told a police officer that her boyfriend had just “beat [her] up,” and the officer observed that the woman had physical injuries and was distraught.

This is so if the police questioning “relate[s] directly to addressing the emergency.”

T he Confrontation Clause “prohibits ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.’” State v. Warsame , (quoting Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36, 53 -54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1365 (2004)).

at 827, 126 S. Ct. at 2276-77; (applying the Davis factors).

This means that the 7 Confrontation Clause “prohibits ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross -examination.’” State v. Warsame , (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54, 124 S. Ct. at 1365).

(citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 826 -27, 126 S. Ct. at 2276-77).

This means that the Confrontation Clause “prohibits ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior 9 opportunity for cross -examination.’” State v. Warsame , (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53–54, 124 S. Ct. at 1365).

See, e.g. , State v. Warsame , , 697 n.7 (Minn. 2007) (suggesting no forfeiture even if defendant cut telephone lines to prevent witness from calling 911 because this conduct could not have prevented witness from testifying at trial).

In order to be nontestimonial, “the interrogation must relate directly to addressing the emergency.”

The Confrontation Clause “prohibits 15 ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross- examination.’” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1365 (2004)).

(citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 826-27, 126 S. Ct. at 2276-77).

“[W]hether the admission of evidence violates a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause is a question of law that we review de novo.”

(citing Davis, 547 U.S. at 826-27, 126 S. Ct. at 2276-77).

The Confrontation Clause “prohibits ‘admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross- examination.’” (quoting Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1365 (2004)).

Whether a defendant’s confrontation rights have been violated “is a question of law that we review de novo.”