State of New Jersey in the Interest of J.a., Juvenile-Appellant

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the out‑of‑court statements of a non‑testifying eyewitness were testimonial and their admission violated the juvenile’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights, reversing the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanding for a new trial. The Court also concluded that the statements did not satisfy the present‑sense impression exception because they were not made "immediately" after the robbery. Justice Rivera‑Soto dissented, arguing that the majority should have resolved the evidentiary issue before reaching the constitutional question.