Skip to content
Name: Areas Constitutional Law

The Court of Appeal held the admission of certain out-of-court statements violated appellant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The parties on appeal disagreed only on whether the statements were testimonial. The court found that the primary purpose of the conversation between law enforcement and the declarants was to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony, and that the resulting statements were therefore testimonial. The error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt as to two of appellant’s counts. The court reversed the affected counts and remanded so as to give the prosecution the opportunity to retry appellant on those charges.