State v. Gilmore

Summary

The Court held that a video recording of a controlled drug purchase depicted the confidential informant’s nonverbal conduct but did not depict any statement, because the conduct was not intended as an assertion. The recording therefore did not contain testimonial statements barred by the Confrontation Clause, and the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded. The Court also held that the recording did not constitute implied hearsay merely because it could support an inference that the defendant sold drugs.