We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution is violated by the admission, during a criminal trial, of a tape-recording of a 911 emergency telephone call when the caller does not testify at trial. We hold that the Confrontation Clause is not violated where, as here, the caller’s primary purpose is not to provide evidence against the accused, but rather, to thwart an ongoing crime or seek rescue from immediate peril. Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals.1 In Crawford v. Washington , the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of out-of-court statements that are testimonial in nature violates the Confrontation Clause unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.2 When the statement at issue is non-testimonial in nature, however, the State’s normal rules regarding the admission of hearsay apply.3 The Supreme Court declined to delineate the precise contours for determining whether a statement qualifies as testimonial, but did provide some helpful analysis in that regard.4
The Supreme Court found that for those statements that “bear testimony” against the accused, the defendant’s right of “confrontation” was the only historically dependable means of testing the reliability of that statement.5 Testimony is a “solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.”6 Thus, the Confrontation Clause would prohibit the introduction of a formal statement to a government officer made in an effort to establish an evidentiary case, such as that which occurs during a police investigation.7 The Supreme Court also found that a statement might also be considered testimonial if it was “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.”8
