WPCW 2mSPBvX=2(0sU/DT ]`PCS/Mzh9"~@6PϨuy?jy -ހ$Ec1/c&CR;v%'.kK=%as 2bعq>+"fOpި ;__>2˹[ XXJǞwhpj>ϢVuB|`+h3.?j1Q6ΒJkB)H0X\i]FP403 p* F:o,y$T&{袄kݢZ[{  0 0 0 0aE 0 0Z 09 0G 02# 0U 0:Q 0 0_ 0 o 0ky 0 B* D3 C D+" 0M 0 06 01 0:9 0hs 0FU6!U>WU*N^ w@4 !0 m2ULNIM 0Ca 0( AMMMM!M%M)M-M1M5M9M=MAMEMI 0DMMMMHP LaserJet 4,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK%<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K%<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K%<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I4$ ** ddI  B    ?'%2A`Arial?9*  dd9  XXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI4$** ddI  B    ?'%2A`Arial?9*  dd9  XXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK%<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK%<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS&\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial0 8D9D:D;<D=>?@AY03|xA UxhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2C$ !  ($123A<< c(3$ !   MansellPaternoWoodfordEcclestonTatumArsdallMatlockSpechtCastilleBourjailyInadiArandaBrutonCannadyMattoxBrodittestimoniaBeelerContrerasMancusiStubbs Kons !  _8Xdd8      #XXCRAWFORDv.WASHINGTON:THECONFRONTATIONCLAUSEREBORN     ByJonathanGrossman   A.THECONFRONTATIONCLAUSE     Inallcriminalprosecutions,theaccusedshallenjoytheright...tobeconfrontedwiththewitnessesagainsthim.../#Ԁ.##/D#Ԁ(U.S.Const.,6thAmend.)TheConfrontationClause   appliesinstatecourtproceedingsthroughthedueprocessclauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.(Pointerv.Texas(1965)380U.S.400,406.)    B.THEOLDSTANDARD    /#  Insum,whenahearsaydeclarantisnotpresentforcrossexaminationattrial,the   ConfrontationClausenormallyrequiresashowingthatheisunavailable.Eventhen,hisstatementisadmissibleonlyifitbearsadequateindiciaofreliability.Reliabilitycanbeinferredwithoutmoreinacasewheretheevidencefallswithinafirmlyrootedhearsayexception.Inothercases,theevidencemustbeexcluded,atleastabsentashowingofparticularizedguaranteesoftrustworthiness.(Ohiov.Roberts(1980)448U.S.56,63.)##/#   C.THENEWSTANDARD     Wherenontestimonialhearsayisatissue,itiswhollyconsistentwiththeFramersdesigntoaffordtheStatesflexibilityintheirdevelopmentofhearsaylawasdoesRoberts,  andaswouldanapproachthatexemptedsuchstatementsfromConfrontationClausescrutinyaltogether.Wheretestimonialevidenceisatissue,however,theSixthAmendmentdemandswhatthecommonlawrequired:unavailabilityandaprioropportunityforcrossexamination.Weleaveforanotherdayanyefforttospelloutacomprehensivedefinitionoftestimonial.(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354,1374].)    Testimonialatleastincludesstatementsunderoathincourt,inaffidavits,andindepositions.Italsoincludesstatementstothepoliceduringinterrogations.(Id.,atp.__   [124S.Ct.atp.1364].) Statementstakenbypoliceofficersinthecourseofinterrogationsarealsotestimonialunderevenanarrowstandard.PoliceinterrogationsbearastrikingresemblancetoexaminationsbyjusticesofthepeaceinEngland.Thestatementsarenotsworntestimony,buttheabsenceofoathwasnotdispositive.(Ibid.)Inthiscase,the $  defendantswifemadedamagingstatementsduringapoliceinterrogation.Sherefusedtotestifyunderthestatesspousalprivilegerule.Theprosecutionadmittedthewifesstatementstothepolice,despitethedefendantsconfrontationobjection. D.THEPOLICY  ,((   Theoriginalintentoftheconfrontationclausewastopermitthecriminaldefendanttofacehisaccusersinanadversarialproceedingandquestionthem. Englishcommonlawhaslongdifferedfromcontinentalcivillawinregardtothemannerinwhichwitnessesgivetestimonyincriminaltrials.Thecommonlawtraditionisoneoflivetestimonyincourtsubjecttoadversarialtesting,whilethecivillawcondonesexaminationsinprivatebyjudicialofficers.(Id.,atp.__[124S.Ct.atp.1359].)WithouttheSixthAmendment,  $  [_w]e_ԀshallfindCongresspossessedofpowersenablingthemtoinstitutejudicatorieslittlelessinauspiciousthanacertaintribunalinSpain,...theInquisition.(Id.,atp.__[124  0 S.Ct.atp.1362].)  Wheretestimonialstatementsareinvolved,wedonotthinktheFramersmeanttoleavetheSixthAmendmentsprotectiontothevagariesoftherulesofevidence,muchlesstoamorphousnotionsofreliability.(Id.,atp.__[124S.Ct.atp.1370A]A.) Where N  testimonialstatementsareatissue,theonlyindiciumofreliabilitysufficienttosatisfyconstitutionaldemandsistheonetheConstitutionactuallyprescribes:confrontation.(Id.,  Z atp.__[124S.Ct.atp.1374].) E.TENPOINTSABOUTTHECONFRONTATIONCLAUSE  l   1.Mustobjectonfederalconfrontationgrounds./cfcf(Evid.Code,353;#cf/cf#/cfcfPeoplev. "r Brown(2003)31Cal.4th518,542;Peoplev.Gordon(1990)50Cal.3d1223,1254,fn.6; (x see#cf/cfq#&cfcfDavisv.Woodford(9thCir.2003)333F.3d982,#cf&cfL#/cfcf10061007.)#cf/cf#/cfcfԀ#cf/cf# .~   2.Standardofreview:/cfcf Atrialcourtsdeterminationregardingwhetherahearsay : statementhastherequiredindiciaofreliabilityissubjecttoindependentreviewonappeal.Ϛ(Lillyv.Virginia(1999)527U.S.116,136;Peoplev.Eccleston(2001)89Cal.App.4th435, F 445446.)Atrialcourtsfindingofhistoricalfactmustbeupheldifsupportedbysubstantialevidence.Atrialcourtsdeterminationsofstatelawissuesarealsoreviewedforanabuseofdiscretion.(Lillyv.Virginia,supra,527U.S.atp.136.)(Peoplev.Tatum(2003)108 X! Cal.App.4th288,296.)#cf/cf# ^"   3.Mustshowprejudiceunder/cfcfChapmanv.California(1967)386U.S.18,24#cf/cf#. j$ К(Delawarev.Arsdall(1986)475U.S.673,684.) p%    4.Theconfrontationclauseappliesonlytoacriminaltrial./cfcf(Peoplev.Miranda |'"" (2000)23Cal.4th340,352353;seeKentuckyv.Spencer(1987)482U.S.730,740;United (## Statesv.Matlock(1974)415U.S.164,172173.)#cf/cf#Therighttoconfrontandcrossexamine )$$ awitnesscanbeadueprocessrightwhenthereisalibertyinterestatstake./cfcf(See,e.g., *%% _Gagnon_Ԁv._Scarpelli_(1973)411U.S.778,786;#cf/cfq#/cfcf88#cf/cfG#/cfcfSpechtv.Patterson(1967)386U.S.605, +&& 610;#cf/cf#Ԛ/cfcfseealsoInre_Melinda_ԀS.(1990)51Cal.3d368,383,fn.16.)#cf/cf%# ,''   5.Thereisusuallynoconfrontationclauseviolationifthedeclaranttestifies.  /cfcf(Californiav.Green(1970)399U.S.149,162;UnitedStatesv.Owens(1988)484  U.S.554,559[witnesscouldnotrememberhisprioridentification];Nelsonv._ONeil_(1971)   402U.S.622,629630#cf/cf`#Ԁ[witnessdeniedmakingpriorstatements].) Finally,wereiterate  that,whenthedeclarantappearsforcrossexaminationattrial,theConfrontationClauseplacesnoconstraintsatallontheuseofhispriortestimonialstatements.SeeCaliforniav.   Green,399U.S.149,162.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cf!#Ԁ(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__,fn.9[124  $ S.Ct.1354,1369,fn.9].)  6.Theconfrontationclausedoesnotapplyiftheextrajudicialstatementisnothearsay. TheClausealsodoesnotbartheuseoftestimonialstatementsforpurposesotherρthanestablishingthetruthofthematterasserted.SeeTennesseev.Street[(1985)]471U.S. B  409,414.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cf ##Ԁ(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__,fn.9[124S.Ct.1354,1369, H  fn.9].)InStreet,thedefendantclaimedhisconfessionwascoercedwhenthepoliceread N  tohimthecodefendantsconfessionandtoldhimtosaythesamething.Inrebuttal,theprosecution?presented?apoliceofficer@who@testifiedastothecircumstancesofStreetsinterrogationandpointedtodifferencesinStreetsconfessionwiththecodefendantsconfession.TherewasnoconfrontationproblembecausestatementsfromthecodefendantsconfessionwereadmittednotforthetruthofthematterassertedbutfordescribingthecircumstancesofStreetsinterrogation.  7.Theconfrontationclausemightapplyonlyto testimonialhearsay. Anoffhand,overheardremarkmightbeunreliableevidenceandthusagoodcandidateforexclusionunderhearsayrules,butitbearslittleresemblancetothecivillawabusestheConfrontationClausetargeted.(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__,[124S.Ct. @ 1354,1364].) [Legalscholars]offertwoproposals:First,thatweapplytheConfrontationClauseonlytotestimonialstatements...[]InWhite,weconsideredthefirstproposaland L rejectedit.502U.S.,at352353.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cf(#ԀAlthoughouranalysisinthiscasecastsdoubtonthat R  holding,weneednotdefinitivelyresolvewhetheritsurvivesourdecisiontoday.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cf)#Ԁ(Id., X! atp.__[124S.Ct.atp.1367].)  8.PreviousholdingsbytheSupremeCourtarestillgoodlaw. OurcaseshavethusremainedfaithfultotheFramersunderstanding:Testimonialstatementsofwitnessesabsentfromtrialhavebeenadmittedonlywherethedeclarantisunavailable,andonlywherethedefendanthashadaprioropportunitytocrossexamine.(Crawfordv.Washington(2004) |'"" 541U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354,1369].) [_T]he_ԀresultsofourdecisionshavegenerallybeenfaithfultotheoriginalmeaningoftheConfrontationClause.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cf,#Ԁ(Ibid.) )$$  ,''   9.Theconfrontationclauseincludestherighttophysicallyseethewitness.(Compare/cfcfMarylandv.Craig(1990)497U.S.836with#cf/cf|-#/cfcfCoyv.Iowa(1988)487U.S.1012;  Peoplev.Murphy(2003)107Cal.App.4th1150.)#cf/cf-#     10.Theconfrontationclauseincludestheopportunityforcrossexaminationonallmattersofsubstantialprobativevalue./cfcf(Cranev.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.683,690691.)#cf/cfF/#Ԁ   /cfcf [A]criminaldefendantstatesaviolationoftheConfrontationClausebyshowingthathe  $ wasprohibitedfromengaginginotherwiseappropriatecrossexaminationdesignedtoshowaprototypicalformofbiasonthepartofthewitness,andtherebytoexposetothejurythefactsfromwhichthejurors...couldappropriatelydrawinferencesrelatingtothereliabilityofthewitness.[Citation.](Delawarev.VanArsdall(1986)475U.S.673,#cf/cf/#/cfcf680.)Acourt <  hasdiscretioninproperlylimitingevidencethatisadmitted;thereisnotSixthAmendmentviolationatallunlesstheprohibitedcrossexaminationmightreasonablyhaveproduced asignificantlydifferentimpressionof[thewitnesss]credibility....#cf/cf1#Ԁ(Ibid.) N   F.APPLICATIONOFTHECONFRONTATIONCLAUSETOSPECIFICSTATE  Z HEARSAYEXCEPTIONS  `   Hearsayevidenceisevidenceofastatementthatwasmadeotherthanbyawitnesswhiletestifyingatthehearingandthatisofferedtoprovethetruthofthematterstated.(Evid.Code,1200,subd.(a).)Astatementisan oralorwrittenverbalexpressionor...nonverbalconductofapersonintendedbyhimasasubstitutefororalorwrittenverbalexpression.(Evid.Code,225.)   Nothearsay  :   Legallyoperativelanguagetoshowconsent,agreement,agency,solicitation,etc./cfcf(SeePeoplev.Fields(1998)61Cal.App.4th1063,10681069.)#cf/cfa6# F   Circumstantialevidenceofstateofmindtoshowbelieforknowledge.(See/cfcfPeople L v.Cox(2003)30Cal.4th916,957959.)#cf/cfY7# R    Effectonhearertoshownotice,motive,duecare,etc./cfcf(#cf/cf>8#/cfcfPeoplev._Boyette_(2002)29 X! Cal.4th381,429;Peoplev.Duran(1976)16Cal.3d282,295#cf/cf8#.) ^"   Presentmemoryrefreshed(Evid.Code,771)  Freshcomplaintisadmissibletoshowthecircumstancesofthecomplainttobolsterthecredibilityofthecomplainingwitness,notforthetruthofthematterasserted.(People p%  v.Brown(1994)8Cal.4th764.)Becauseitisnotactuallyhearsay,thereshouldbeno v&!! confrontationproblemwhenitisproperlyadmitted.Also,astatementtoacivilianappearsnottobe testimonial.(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354, (## 1364].)  Evid.Code1202Impeachingthecredibilityofthedeclarant withotherhearsay +&& mightbeadmissibleunderEvidenceCodebutposenewConfrontationproblems.For ,'' example,althoughpriorinconsistentstatementsareadmissible,infra,testimonialprior  inconsistentstatementsofadeclarantwhonevertestifiesmightfitwithinthecontextofCrawford.      1220 Admissionbythedefendant isnormallynotaconfrontationproblem./cfcf(See  #cf/cf >#/cfcfLillyv.Virginia(1999)527U.S.116,127.)#cf/cfn>#     1221Adoptiveadmission /cfcf(seePeoplev.Riel(2000)22Cal.4th1153,1189#cf/cf$?#)could  * poseaproblemwiththeconfrontationclauseortherighttoremainsilent./cfcfIn#cf/cf@#Ԛ/cfcfPeoplev.  0 Castille(2003)108Cal.App.4th469,479480,thecourtofappealupheldthedecisionto  6  admitanadoptiveadmission.Inthatcase,thepoliceinterrogatedthreecodefendantsatthesametime.Oneofthecodefendantsblabbed.Thedefendantsometimesconfirmedthecodefendantsstatements,sometimeshedeniedthemorsaidhedidnotremember.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari,vacatedthejudgment,andtransferreditbacktothestate9in9courtforreconsiderationinlightof#cf/cfL@#Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541 T U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354].(Shieldsv.California(Mar.22,2004,No.037276)__U.S.__.)  Z   1223Admissioninfurtheranceofaconspiracy doesnotposeaconfrontation f problem.(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354,1367];/cfcf Bourjaily l v.UnitedStates(1987)483U.S.171,182184;UnitedStatesv.Inadi(1985)475U.S.387, "r 395;#cf/cfED#/cfcfcf.Duttonv.Evans(1970)400U.S.74,8789[admissionofastatementbya (x coconspiratornotinfurtheranceofaconspiracymadetoanotherprisonerdidnotviolatetheconfrontationclause].)#cf/cf1E# 4   1228Statementbyminorunder12whowasavictimofsexcrime(1985) @  appearstoposeaconfrontationproblem.Itpermitstheadmissionofstatementsbyaminor F undertheageof12whowasavictimofmolestationifthestatementsweredocumentedinapolicereportorsocialworkerreport,thestatementsweremadebeforeaconfessionbythedefendant,theminorisunavailabletotestify,andthestatementsarereliable.Theminorsstatementstothepolice:is:clearly;are;testimonial;thestatementstothesocialworkerarguably<is<=are=.WhetherthestatementsarereliablenolongermakethemadmissibleundertheConfrontationClause.Ifthedefendantisdeprivedofanopportunitytocrossexaminetheminor,thiscreatesaCrawfordtypeconfrontationproblem.Becausetheremustbea p%  confessionfromthedefendant,anyerrormightbeharmless.(See_Creutz_Ԁv.SuperiorCourt v&!! (1996)49Cal.App.4th822,828831.)  1230Declarationagainstinterest (see/cfcfPeoplev.Leach(1975)15Cal.3d419,441 )$$ &fn.17).#cf/cfJ#/cfcf Incriminaltrials,statementsagainstpenalinterestareofferedintoevidencein *%% threeprincipalsituations:(1)asvoluntaryadmissionsagainstthedeclarant;(2)asexculpatoryevidenceofferedbyadefendantwhoclaimsthatthedeclarantcommitted,or ,'' _wasinvolvedin,theoffense;and(3)asevidenceofferedbytheprosecutiontoestablishtheguiltofanallegedaccompliceofthedeclarant.(#cf/cfK#/cfcfLillyv.Virginia(1999)527U.S.116,127  (plur.opn.).)Thefirstcategoryissimplyanadmissionbythedefendant,butitcanleadto   anArandaBrutonprobleminajointjurytrial.#cf/cfM#(Ibid.)/cfcfԀThesecondcategorydoesnotpose  aconfrontationproblembecauseitisbeingofferedbythedefendant.#cf/cfN#(Id.,atpp./cfcfԀ129130.)  Thethirdcategorydoesposeaconfrontationproblem.#cf/cfO#(Id.,atp.atpp./cfcfԀ131134#cf/cfrP#;Leev.   Illinois(1986)476U.S.530,545.)Declarationstociviliansposelessofaconfrontation  $ problembecausethestatementmightnotbetestimonial.(SeeCrawfordv.Washington  * (2004)541U.S.__[124S.Ct.1354,1364][ Anaccuserwhomakesaformalstatementtogovernmentofficersbearstestimonyinasensethatapersonwhomakesacasualremarktoanacquaintancedoesnot.];/cfcfDuttonv.Evans(1970)400U.S.74,8789[statementbya <  coconspiratortoaciviliandidnotviolatetheconfrontationclause].)#cf/cfR#/cfcfStatementsadmitted B  forthelimitedpurposeofshowingguiltofacodefendantinajointjurytrialcreatesaconfrontationproblem.(Brutonv.UnitedStates(1968)391U.S.123,126129;Richardson N  v.Marsh(1987)481U.S.200,208,211;#cf/cfwS#/cfcfPeoplev.Fletcher(1996)13Cal.4th451,456465; T seePeoplev.Aranda(1965)63Cal.2d518,530.)#cf/cfT#/cfcf  Z #cf/cfU#  1231Decedentsswornstatementregardinggangcrimes(1997) appearstopose f aconfrontationproblembecauseitrequiresthedeclaranttomakeaswornstatementinanticipationoflitigationwhichfitsthedefinitionoftestimonial.Itmightbeadmissibleasadyingdeclaration.  1235Priorinconsistentstatement ofawitnessposesnoconfrontationproblem.  4 /cfcf(Californiav.Green(1970)399U.S.149,158.)#cf/cfW# :   1236Priorconsistentstatement ofawitnessprobablydoesnotposea F confrontationproblem.(SeePeoplev.Cannady(1972)8Cal.3d379,386,relyingon L /cfcfCaliforniav.Green(1970)399U.S.149,158,161.)#cf/cf6Y# R    1237Pastrecollectionrecorded probablydoesnotposeaconfrontationproblem ^" becausethedeclarantmusttestifytoauthenticatethepriorrecording.(SeePeoplev. d# Cummings(1993)4Cal.4th1233,1292.) j$   1238Prioridentification appearstoposenoconfrontationproblembecausethe v&!! declarantmusttestify./cfcf(UnitedStatesv.Owens(1988)484U.S.554,559#cf/cf[#.) |'""   1240,1241Spontaneousandcontemporaneousdeclaration mightposea )$$ confrontationproblem.Itappearsnottoposeaconfrontationproblemtotheextentthestatementistrulyspontaneousorcontemporaneoustotheevent/cfcfԀ(Idahov.Wright(1990)497 +&& U.S.805,820)orifitismadetoanothercivilianorotherwiseisnottestimonial(see#cf/cf]#People ,'' v._Moscat_(N.Y.City_Crim_.Ct.Mar.25,2004,2003BX044511)___NYS_Ԁ__[2004N.Y.  Misc.LEXIS231][911callnottestimonial])/cfcf.Aconfrontationproblemmightarisebecause  Californiastatutesdefinethehearsayexceptionsbroadly,anditdoesnotreallyrequireaspontaneousstatementtobespontaneous.(Peoplev.Brown(2003)31Cal.4th518,541  [lapseintimenotdispositive,issueismentalstateofdeclarant];Peoplev._Raley_(1992)2  Cal.4th870,893894[18hoursaftertheeventwasspontaneous];#cf/cf_#Ԛ/cfcfPeoplev.Trimble(1992)   5Cal.App.4th1225,12341235[twodayslater]#cf/cf.a#/cfcf.)#cf/cfa#/cfcfԀCaliforniapermits spontaneous  $ statementstobeinresponsetoquestioning(Peoplev.Farmer(1989)47Cal.3d888,903  * 904#cf/cfb#/cfcf;Peoplev._Poggi_(1988)45Cal.3d306,319#cf/cfc#/cfcf)andtodescribenotjusteventsbutalso  0 impressionsandopinions(Farmer,supra,atp.903).#cf/cfc#/cfcfIn#cf/cfWd#Ԁ/cfcfWhitev.Illinois(1992)502U.S.  6  346,thestatetriedtoadmitthestatementsofachildsexvictimtodoctorsasaspontaneousstatement.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthestatedidnothavetoestablishtheminorwasunavailable.#cf/cfd#/cfcfԀ#cf/cfe#(Id.,atpp./cfcfԀ353357.)Butnow [_i]t_Ԁisquestionablewhether H  testimonialstatementswouldeverhavebeenadmissibleonthatgroundin1791;totheextentthehearsayexceptionforspontaneousdeclarationsexistedatall,itrequiredthatthestatementsbemadeimmediatelyuponthehurtreceived,andbefore[thedeclarant]hadtimetodeviseorcontriveanythingforherownadvantage.[Citation.]#cf/cfEf#Ԁ(Crawfordv. ` Washington(2004)541U.S.__,fn.8[124S.Ct.1354,1368,fn.8].) f   1242Dyingdeclaration appearsnottoposeaconfrontationproblem,butitmight. "r  Theonedeviationwehavefoundinvolvesdyingdeclarations.Theexistenceofthatexceptionasageneralruleofcriminalhearsaylawcannotbedisputed.See,e.g.,Mattoxv. .~ UnitedStates,156U.S.237,243244.../cfcfԀ.#cf/cfGj#ԀAlthoughmanydyingdeclarationsmaynotbe 4 testimonial,thereisauthorityforadmittingeventhosethatclearlyare.[Citations.]WeneednotdecideinthiscasewhethertheSixthAmendmentincorporatesanexceptionfortestimonialdyingdeclarations.Ifthisexceptionmustbeacceptedonhistoricalgrounds,itissuigeneris.𚀀(Crawfordv.Washington(2004)541U.S.__,fn.6[124S.Ct.1354,1367, L fn.6];seealso/cfcfKirbyv.UnitedStates(1899)174U.S.47,61.)#cf/cfll# R    12501253Statementformedicaldiagnosis (/cfcfseePeoplev.Brodit(1998)64 ^" Cal.App.4th1312)#cf/cf?m#mightposeaconfrontationproblem/cfcf.#cf/cfm#Ԁ(Compare/cfcfWhitev.Illinois(1992) d# 502U.S.346,353357withIdahov.Wright(1990)497U.S.805,817818.)In#cf/cf.>(InreLuceroL.(2000)22Cal.4th1227,12421250.) 4