Bullcoming v. New Mexico

The Court has consistently held “[A]s a rule, if an out-of-court statement is testimonial in nature, it may not be introduced against the accused at trial unless the witness who made the statement is unavailable and the accused has had a prior opportunity to confront that witness.” A statement is “testimonial in nature” if its primary purpose is to prove “past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” This rule is designed to protect the defendant’s Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause right to challenge adversarial testimonial evidence. The Court refused to create a “forensic evidence” exception to this rule.