Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Right To Confront Witnesses

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Right To Confront WitnessesQuestion 1 of 12

During a shooting at a nightclub, a bartender called 911 from behind the bar and said, 'A man is shooting people! He's wearing a red jacket—I think it's Leo, who used to work here.' The shooter was still active. At Leo's trial for attempted murder, the bartender cannot be found. The prosecutor offers a recording of the 911 call. Leo's counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

Should the court admit the recording?

No, because the bartender's statement identified Leo as the shooter and the bartender is unavailable.

Yes, because the call was made during an ongoing emergency to obtain police assistance and is therefore nontestimonial.

No, because 911 calls are inherently testimonial and may be admitted only with prior cross-examination.

Yes, because a hearsay statement identifying a defendant is admissible when the declarant is unavailable.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Right To Confront Witnesses

Practice Right To Confront Witnesses in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Right To Confront Witnesses, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Should the court admit the recording?

No, because the bartender's statement identified Leo as the shooter and the bartender is unavailable.
Yes, because the call was made during an ongoing emergency to obtain police assistance and is therefore nontestimonial. (correct answer)
No, because 911 calls are inherently testimonial and may be admitted only with prior cross-examination.
Yes, because a hearsay statement identifying a defendant is admissible when the declarant is unavailable.

Explanation: Whenever you see a Confrontation Clause issue involving a 911 call, your first move is to apply the "primary purpose" test from Davis v. Washington. The clause only bars testimonial statements—those made primarily to establish past facts for prosecution. If the statement is made during an ongoing emergency to obtain help, it is nontestimonial, and the Confrontation Clause does not apply at all. Here, the shooter is still active, and the bartender is calling for police assistance to end the threat. The primary purpose is to seek help, not to build a case, so the recording is admissible. That makes "Yes, because the call was made during an ongoing emergency to obtain police assistance and is therefore nontestimonial" correct. The first wrong choice, "No, because the bartender's statement identified Leo as the shooter and the bartender is unavailable," gets the rule backwards—unavailability only matters for testimonial statements, and this one isn't testimonial. The third choice, "No, because 911 calls are inherently testimonial," is flatly false; Davis explicitly held that 911 calls can be nontestimonial. The last choice, "Yes, because a hearsay statement identifying a defendant is admissible when the declarant is unavailable," misstates hearsay law—no such blanket exception exists, and the Confrontation Clause would still require a prior opportunity to cross-examine if the statement were testimonial. Your study tip: always ask why the statement was made. If the declarant is seeking help for an ongoing danger, it's nontestimonial. If the declarant is describing past events to an officer after the fact, it's testimonial. Spot the active shooter versus the after-the-fact interview.

Question 2

Eli is charged with sexually abusing his seven-year-old niece. The state asks the court to permit the niece to testify by one-way closed-circuit television from another room so that she will not have to see Eli. The state offers expert testimony that child witnesses in sexual-abuse cases frequently suffer severe emotional distress when testifying in front of the defendant. Without making any finding about this particular child, the court grants the request. Defense counsel objects.

Does the procedure violate Eli's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses?

No, because Eli can see and hear the child on a monitor and can consult with counsel during the testimony.
No, because the state has a compelling interest in protecting child witnesses from trauma.
Yes, because the Sixth Amendment guarantees a face-to-face encounter with the accuser in every criminal case.
Yes, because the court did not make a case-specific finding that this child would suffer serious trauma if forced to testify in Eli's presence. (correct answer)

Explanation: Whenever you see a Confrontation Clause question about a witness testifying via closed-circuit television, think Maryland v. Craig. That case held that face-to-face confrontation is preferred but not absolute. The state may use one-way CCTV only if the court makes a case-specific finding that this particular child would suffer serious emotional distress if forced to testify in the defendant's presence. Here, the court relied on generic expert testimony about child witnesses generally, making no finding about Eli's niece specifically. This failure to apply the individualized inquiry Craig requires is the fatal flaw. The choice stating that the procedure is invalid because the court did not make a case-specific finding that this child would suffer serious trauma is correct. Now address the distractors. The choice that it's fine because Eli can see and hear the child is a trap — observation via monitor is not the same as a face-to-face encounter, and the exception only applies after the specific finding is made. The choice citing the state's compelling interest in protecting child witnesses is also wrong — the interest is legitimate, but Craig requires an individualized finding of trauma for this child, not just a general interest. Finally, the choice that the Sixth Amendment guarantees face-to-face in every case is too absolute; Craig creates a narrow exception, so it is not an absolute right. Study tip: for any Confrontation Clause alternative-testimony question, check for the two-part Craig test — a compelling state interest and a case-specific finding of trauma. If the court relies on generalities, the procedure is unconstitutional.

Question 3

A jury is trying Dana for possession of a controlled substance. The prosecutor offers a signed certificate of analysis from the state crime laboratory stating that the substance found in Dana's pocket was methamphetamine. The chemist who signed the certificate has retired and is not called as a witness. Instead, the prosecutor calls the lab's records custodian, who authenticates the certificate as a record kept in the ordinary course of the lab's business. Dana's counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

How should the court rule on the objection?

Overrule, because the certificate is a business record and therefore nontestimonial.
Overrule, because the records custodian is available for cross-examination about the lab's procedures.
Sustain, because the certificate is testimonial and Dana had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the chemist. (correct answer)
Sustain, because the Confrontation Clause requires that every person who handled the evidence testify at trial.

Explanation: Whenever you see an out-of-court statement offered against a criminal defendant, start with the Confrontation Clause: if the statement is "testimonial," the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. This question tests that principle with forensic evidence. The certificate of analysis is testimonial. It was created by the chemist to prove a fact at trial — that the substance was methamphetamine — and it has no purpose other than use in prosecution. Under the rule from Melendez-Diaz, a lab certificate like this cannot be introduced unless the analyst who made it testifies or is unavailable and Dana had a prior chance to cross-examine. Dana had no such opportunity, so the objection should be sustained. The first wrong answer, "because the certificate is a business record and therefore nontestimonial," is a trap: records kept in the ordinary course may be admissible hearsay, but a forensic report prepared for litigation is testimonial despite qualifying as a business record. The second wrong answer, "because the records custodian is available," misses the point: the custodian can authenticate the record, but the chemist is the declarant whose statement Dana has a right to confront. The fourth wrong answer, "because every person who handled the evidence must testify," is too broad — the Confrontation Clause requires testimony from those who make testimonial statements, not every person in the chain of custody. Study tip: on a criminal evidence question, don't assume "business record" defeats a Confrontation Clause objection. Ask instead whether the statement was made primarily for trial.

Question 4

At the defendant's first trial for assault, the victim testified. Defense counsel deliberately asked no questions because she thought the victim appeared evasive and she did not want to highlight the testimony. The jury deadlocked, and a mistrial was declared. The victim died before the retrial. The prosecution offers a transcript of the victim's testimony from the first trial. Defense counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

Is the victim's prior testimony admissible?

No, because the defendant did not actually cross-examine the victim at the first trial.
Yes, because the victim is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her. (correct answer)
No, because a transcript from a prior trial is testimonial and the mistrial means there was no final judgment.
Yes, because a witness's prior testimony is admissible whenever the witness is unavailable for trial.

Explanation: This question tests the Confrontation Clause and the "prior testimony" hearsay exception. When a witness is unavailable, the Sixth Amendment allows admission of that witness's prior testimony if the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Crucially, the law requires an opportunity to cross-examine, not actual cross-examination. Here, the victim testified at the first trial, and defense counsel deliberately chose to ask no questions. That was a strategic decision, not a denial of opportunity. Because the victim is now dead—clearly unavailable—and the defendant had the chance to test her testimony, the transcript is admissible. The mistrial and lack of final judgment are irrelevant; the prior testimony exception does not require a completed trial. The first wrong answer, "No, because the defendant did not actually cross-examine," conflates waiver with deprivation. Counsel's silence was a choice, not a lost opportunity. The third wrong answer, "No, because a transcript is testimonial and the mistrial means no final judgment," confuses admissibility with finality; testimonial statements can be admitted if the opportunity requirement is met. The fourth wrong answer, "Yes, because prior testimony is admissible whenever the witness is unavailable," overstates the rule—unavailability alone is insufficient; the prior opportunity to cross-examine is the essential safeguard. On exam day, when you see a Confrontation Clause question, ask two things: Is the witness unavailable? Did the defendant have a prior opportunity to cross-examine? If both are yes, the prior testimony comes in—even if defense counsel chose to stay silent.

Question 5

Hal and Ivan are tried jointly for bank robbery. Ivan gave a recorded statement to police in which he said, 'Hal and I robbed the bank, and Hal was holding the gun.' Ivan does not testify at trial. The prosecutor offers the recording only against Ivan, and the court instructs the jury that it may not consider the statement against Hal. Hal's counsel objects.

Does the admission of Ivan's statement violate Hal's right to confront witnesses?

No, because the jury was instructed to consider the statement only against Ivan.
No, because Ivan's statement is a statement against penal interest and carries sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness.
Yes, because any out-of-court statement by a non-testifying co-defendant is barred in a joint trial.
Yes, because Ivan's statement directly incriminates Hal and Hal had no opportunity to cross-examine Ivan. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you see a question about a co-defendant's statement in a joint trial, the key is Bruton v. United States: a non-testifying co-defendant's confession that directly incriminates you violates your Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses—even if the judge tells the jury to ignore it. Here, Ivan's statement says "Hal and I robbed the bank, and Hal was holding the gun." That directly names Hal and places him at the scene with the weapon. Because Ivan is not testifying, Hal can never cross-examine him about that accusation. The jury instruction is not enough; the risk that the jury will use the statement against Hal is too high. So the correct answer is "Yes, because Ivan's statement directly incriminates Hal and Hal had no opportunity to cross-examine Ivan." Why the others fail: "No, because the jury was instructed…" ignores Bruton—instructions are presumed insufficient for a "powerfully incriminating" statement. "No, because … statement against penal interest" confuses the hearsay exception (which might make the statement admissible against Ivan) with the constitutional confrontation right, which is separate and stricter. "Yes, because any out-of-court statement by a non-testifying co-defendant is barred in a joint trial" overstates the rule—a statement that is redacted to avoid any reference to the other defendant, or that does not incriminate the co-defendant, may be admitted. The correct answer captures the precise Bruton test: direct incrimination plus no opportunity to cross-examine. Study tip: On the bar exam, spot Bruton when you see a confession in a joint trial that names the co-defendant. The redaction exception is your common trap—if the statement is neutralized, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.

Question 6

Rosa was dying from a gunshot wound. A police officer at the scene asked, 'Who shot you?' and Rosa replied, 'Liam shot me.' She died soon after. At Liam's murder trial, the prosecutor offers the officer's testimony. The prosecution concedes that the statement is testimonial. Defense counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

Which is the best statement of the law governing the objection?

The statement is inadmissible because it is testimonial and Liam had no prior opportunity to cross-examine Rosa about it.
The statement is admissible because dying declarations were a recognized exception to the confrontation right at the time the Sixth Amendment was adopted. (correct answer)
The statement is admissible because it was made in response to an ongoing emergency and is therefore nontestimonial.
The statement is inadmissible unless Rosa's statement is also corroborated by independent evidence and Liam had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her.

Explanation: When you see a Conffrontation Clause objection, start by asking whether the out-of-court statement is testimonial. If it is, the general rule is that the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the now-unavailable declarant. But that general rule is not absolute: the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was adopted against a background understanding that dying declarations—statements made under a sense of impending death—were admissible in court. That historical exception survives, so a testimonial dying declaration may be admitted even without prior cross-examination. Here, Rosa's "Liam shot me" was made while dying from a gunshot wound, and the prosecution concedes it is testimonial. The best statement of the law is that the statement is admissible because dying declarations were a recognized exception to the confrontation right at the time the Sixth Amendment was adopted. The first wrong answer—that the statement is inadmissible because it is testimonial and Liam had no prior opportunity to cross-examine—states the general Crawford rule but ignores the dying-declaration exception. The ongoing-emergency choice is also incorrect: it treats the statement as nontestimonial, but the prosecution conceded it was testimonial, and an emergency rationale cannot override the testimonial label. The final choice, requiring corroboration and a prior opportunity, invents an additional requirement; dying declarations do not need independent corroboration. For the bar exam, remember that testimonial hearsay triggers confrontation review, but dying declarations are a narrow historical exception—know that exception to avoid over-applying the prior-cross-examination rule.

Question 7

At the defendant's trial for aggravated assault, the prosecution offers two out-of-court statements from the alleged victim. The first is a recording of her 911 call made during the attack, in which she identified the defendant by name and frantically said he was hitting her. The second is a sworn written statement she gave to police the next day, after she had reached safety, describing in detail how the defendant assaulted her. At trial, the victim does not testify because, after learning she would testify, the defendant threatened to harm her if she appeared. The defendant objects to admission of both statements solely under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause.

How should the court rule on the defendant's objection?

Both statements may be admitted, because the defendant forfeited his right to confront the witness by intentionally attempting to prevent her from testifying. (correct answer)
Only the 911 call may be admitted, because it was nontestimonial; the sworn statement was testimonial and the defendant's wrongdoing cannot cure the lack of cross-examination.
Neither statement may be admitted, because both statements are testimonial and the defendant had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim.
Only the sworn statement may be admitted, because the 911 call lacks adequate indicia of reliability to be treated as nontestimonial evidence.

Explanation: Whenever you see a Confrontation Clause challenge, your first instinct is to sort the statements into testimonial versus nontestimonial. But before diving into that analysis, always scan the facts for any conduct by the defendant that caused the witness's unavailability. Here, the defendant threatened the victim after learning she would testify, which squarely triggers the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. This common-law rule, recognized under the Sixth Amendment, allows admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay when the defendant intentionally procures the witness's unavailability. Because the threat was specifically designed to keep her off the stand, the defendant forfeited his right to object to either statement, regardless of whether the 911 call or the sworn statement is testimonial. Therefore, both statements are admissible. The choice saying "Only the 911 call may be admitted... the defendant's wrongdoing cannot cure the lack of cross-examination" is wrong because forfeiture specifically waives the right to cross-examine—it is an equitable exception that supersedes the testimonial analysis entirely. The choice arguing "Neither statement may be admitted" misses this forfeiture rule completely, and it also mislabels the 911 call, as excited utterances made during an ongoing emergency are typically nontestimonial. Finally, the choice favoring "Only the sworn statement" is backwards; it incorrectly dismisses the 911 call as unreliable, but that recording is highly probative and admissible as a spontaneous declaration, and forfeiture makes the sworn statement admissible too. Your study tip: on the bar exam, when you see a Confrontation Clause question, first ask if the defendant intentionally caused the witness's absence. If yes, stop—forfeiture waives the objection. Only if no wrongdoing occurred do you proceed to the testimonial versus nontestimonial analysis.

Question 8

After a jury convicts Marcus of assault, the court holds a sentencing hearing. The prosecutor offers a written statement by the victim, who is now unavailable, describing how the assault has affected her. Marcus's lawyer objects, arguing that he had no opportunity to cross-examine the victim. The statement is relevant to the sentencing decision.

Should the court admit the victim's statement over the Confrontation Clause objection?

Yes, because the Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing and the statement is relevant. (correct answer)
No, because the Confrontation Clause applies to any stage of a criminal prosecution at which evidence is offered.
No, because the statement is testimonial and Marcus had no prior opportunity to cross-examine the victim.
Yes, because a victim-impact statement is admissible at sentencing regardless of relevance.

Explanation: When you see a Confrontation Clause objection, the first question is not whether the statement is testimonial—it is where the proceeding falls. The right to confront adverse witnesses applies to criminal trials, not to sentencing hearings. Because this is a sentencing proceeding, the key issue is simply relevance, and the victim's statement about how the assault affected her is directly relevant to the sentencing decision. That is why the correct answer is yes: the Confrontation Clause does not apply at sentencing, and the statement is relevant. Marcus's lack of an opportunity to cross-examine the victim does not create a constitutional barrier at this stage; it would have mattered at trial, but the rules of evidence and due process at sentencing are different. The distractor saying the Confrontation Clause applies to any stage of a criminal prosecution at which evidence is offered is too broad—the Sixth Amendment's guarantee is trial-centered. The distractor claiming the statement is inadmissible because it is testimonial and Marcus had no prior cross-examination also imports the trial rule into sentencing, which is the core misconception here. Finally, the answer that a victim-impact statement is admissible regardless of relevance misstates the law: relevance is always required, even if the statement is a common and permissible sentencing consideration. On the exam, when you see "sentencing" and "Confrontation Clause," immediately think: no confrontation right at sentencing; focus on relevance and due process. That saves you from the testimonial-statement trap.

Question 9

At trial, a prosecution witness named Opal testifies that she saw the defendant near the victim's house. On cross-examination, defense counsel asks Opal whether she told police the opposite, and Opal denies it. The prosecutor then calls the detective to testify that Opal told him, 'I never saw him there,' and offers the statement only to impeach Opal, not for its truth. Defense counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

Should the court permit the detective to testify about Opal's prior statement?

No, because the statement to the detective was testimonial and Opal's prior statement was not subject to cross-examination when made.
No, because the prosecutor is attempting to impeach a witness with a statement that was made outside the courtroom.
Yes, because prior inconsistent statements are always admissible for their truth when the declarant is available for cross-examination.
Yes, because Opal is present in court and may be cross-examined about the statement, so the Confrontation Clause is satisfied. (correct answer)

Explanation: When you see a Confrontation Clause objection, ask one threshold question: is the out-of-court statement being offered for its truth? The Confrontation Clause restricts testimonial hearsay, but here the prosecutor expressly offers Opal's prior statement only to impeach her, not to prove the facts in the statement. Because the evidence is not offered for its truth, the Confrontation Clause does not even apply. But even if it did, the witness Opal is in court, on the stand, and available for cross-examination about the statement — which satisfies the core purpose of the Clause: giving the defendant an opportunity to test the reliability of the accusation through cross-examination. The correct answer is the one that says Opal's presence and availability for cross-examination satisfy the Confrontation Clause. That is exactly why the detective's testimony should be permitted. Now the wrong answers. The choice saying "No, because the statement was testimonial and not subject to cross-examination when made" misreads the rule: the relevant cross-examination is at trial, not when the statement was made, and again, the statement is not offered for truth. The choice saying "No, because the prosecutor is impeaching with an out-of-court statement" confuses hearsay with impeachment — prior inconsistent statements are traditionally used to impeach even if they would be hearsay if offered for truth. The choice saying prior inconsistent statements are always admissible for their truth when the declarant is available is overbroad: they are admissible for impeachment, and only for their truth under specific hearsay exceptions or if made under oath in certain proceedings. Study tip: on evidence questions, first classify the purpose — impeachment vs. substantive proof. That distinction often decides both hearsay and Confrontation Clause analysis.

Question 10

Devon is on trial for robbery. The prosecution seeks to admit the grand-jury testimony of Marcus, who identified Devon as the robber. Marcus has since been murdered. Evidence shows that Devon, angry that Marcus had testified before the grand jury, hired a killer to silence Marcus. The prosecution concedes that Devon did not know whether Marcus had been subpoenaed for trial and that the murder was intended as retaliation for the grand-jury appearance, not to prevent trial testimony. Defense counsel objects.

Is the grand-jury testimony admissible over the Confrontation Clause objection?

Yes, because Devon's intentional wrongdoing caused Marcus's unavailability and Devon may not benefit from that wrongdoing.
Yes, because grand-jury testimony is nontestimonial and therefore outside the Confrontation Clause.
No, because forfeiture by wrongdoing requires an intent to prevent the witness from testifying, and retaliation for prior testimony is insufficient. (correct answer)
No, because grand-jury testimony can never be admitted unless the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Explanation: When you see a Confrontation Clause question involving an unavailable witness, your first question should be: is the evidence testimonial, and if so, does an exception apply? Grand-jury testimony is classic testimonial evidence, so the real battleground here is forfeiture by wrongdoing. The correct answer is that the testimony is inadmissible because forfeiture requires an intent to prevent the witness from testifying. Marcus was murdered in retaliation for his grand-jury testimony, not to stop him from testifying at trial. The Supreme Court has made clear that the forfeiture exception applies only when the defendant's wrongdoing was aimed at making the witness unavailable to testify — silencing a witness for past cooperation is not enough, even if the defendant caused the witness's death. The choice saying yes because intentional wrongdoing caused unavailability and Devon cannot benefit is tempting, but it overstates the doctrine: causing unavailability is necessary, not sufficient, without an intent to prevent trial testimony. The claim that grand-jury testimony is nontestimonial is flat wrong; grand-jury proceedings are formal and produce testimony for later prosecution, squarely within the Confrontation Clause. Finally, the statement that grand-jury testimony can never be admitted without prior cross-examination ignores the forfeiture exception — had Devon killed Marcus to prevent trial testimony, the testimony could be admitted despite no prior opportunity to cross-examine. Your study takeaway: know that forfeiture by wrongdoing is intent-based, not merely causation-based. Ask yourself, "Was the defendant trying to keep the witness off the stand, or punishing the witness for something already done?" Only the former forfeits confrontation.

Question 11

At Finn's trial for armed robbery, the sole eyewitness for the prosecution is Greta, who was arrested with Finn and is still in jail awaiting trial on the same charges. No plea agreement has been reached. The court, citing a state rule against impeachment on collateral matters, forbids Finn's lawyer from asking Greta whether she has been charged with the robbery and hopes for leniency. The court also refuses to allow Finn's lawyer to mention the pending charges in argument. Finn is convicted.

Did the court's ruling violate Finn's right to confront witnesses?

No, because the jury was already aware that Greta was arrested with Finn and could infer bias from that fact.
No, because a defendant has no right to cross-examine a witness about matters the trial judge finds collateral or tangential to the issues in the case.
Yes, because Greta's pending charge and hope for leniency are relevant to bias, and Finn was entitled to a meaningful opportunity to explore that bias. (correct answer)
Yes, because the Sixth Amendment requires that a criminal defendant be permitted to introduce any evidence that might affect a witness's credibility, no matter how speculative or remote.

Explanation: When you see a Confrontation Clause question, focus on the defendant's right to a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, especially about bias. A witness's motive to lie is central to that right, not a mere side issue. Here, Greta faces the same robbery charges and hopes for leniency—that gives her a powerful incentive to testify favorably for the prosecution. Because the court barred any inquiry into her pending charges and leniency hope, Finn lost his chance to expose that motive. The Constitution requires more than letting the jury "infer" bias from the fact of arrest: arrest alone does not reveal the specific pressure of unresolved charges or the hope for a deal. The court's reliance on a collateral-matters rule was also misplaced, because bias is never collateral for these purposes; rules against collateral impeachment govern extrinsic evidence on tangential facts, not core cross-examination on a witness's possible self-interest. The "yes, because any evidence that might affect credibility" choice goes too far in the other direction—the Sixth Amendment guarantees a meaningful opportunity to expose bias, not unlimited cross-examination on speculative or remote matters. So the decisive issue is specific, concrete motive: pending charges and hoped-for leniency are directly relevant to bias, and blocking them violated Finn's right. Study tip: on bar exam evidence questions, distinguish "collateral" from "constitutional"—when a witness has a potential deal or pending charge, treat bias cross-examination as mandatory, not discretionary.

Question 12

Juan is charged with assaulting his girlfriend, Rosa. Rosa does not testify at trial. The prosecutor calls the police officer who responded to a 911 call placed by a neighbor. The officer arrived at the apartment about twenty minutes after the call ended. Rosa was crying but not in immediate danger, and Juan was gone. When the officer asked, 'What happened?' Rosa said, 'Juan punched me in the face and ran out the back.' Defense counsel objects under the Confrontation Clause.

How should the trial court rule on the objection?

Sustain the objection, because Rosa's statement was testimonial and Juan had no prior opportunity to cross-examine her. (correct answer)
Overrule the objection, because Rosa's statement was made in response to an ongoing emergency and is therefore nontestimonial.
Overrule the objection, because Rosa's statement qualifies as an excited utterance and excited utterances are not subject to the Confrontation Clause.
Sustain the objection, because any out-of-court statement offered against a criminal defendant violates the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant testifies.

Explanation: Whenever you see a Confrontation Clause objection, focus on whether the out-of-court statement is testimonial. If it is, the declarant must testify or the defendant must have had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her. Here, Rosa's statement to the officer was not in response to an ongoing emergency: the 911 call had ended twenty minutes earlier, Juan was gone, and Rosa was not in immediate danger. The officer's question, "What happened?" sought an account of past events for investigation and potential prosecution, making Rosa's answer testimonial. Because Rosa did not testify and Juan had no prior chance to cross-examine her, the objection should be sustained. The "ongoing emergency" choice fails because emergency context is judged by the primary purpose of the exchange, and the confrontation was over by the time the officer arrived. The "excited utterance" choice is a trap: an excited utterance is a hearsay exception, but hearsay exceptions do not satisfy the Confrontation Clause when a testimonial statement is involved. Finally, the sweeping statement that any out-of-court statement offered against a criminal defendant violates the Clause is too broad—nontestimonial statements, like casual remarks to friends, generally do not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Study tip: When you see a police question in a domestic violence case, ask Was the interrogation an emergency response or an investigation? If the danger has passed and the question seeks past facts, the answer is testimonial.