State v. Scanlan

*755¶1 In this case, we consider whether a crime victim's statements to his medical providers were *756testimonial and, if so, whether their admission at trial violated the defendant's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 We hold that the victim's statements in this case were nontestimonial because they were not made with the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. We separately hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the petitioner's unlawful imprisonment conviction. We affirm the Court of Appeals.

I. FACTS…