Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 23.0

20 

SMITH v. ARIZONA 

Opinion of the Court 

rationale we have just rejected.  See supra, at 10.  It did not 
decide whether Rast’s statements were testimonial.  Nor, to 
our knowledge, did the trial court ever take a stance on that
issue.  Because “we are a court of review, not of first view,” 
we will not be the pioneer court to decide the matter.  Cutter 
v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005).  And indeed, 
we are not sure if there remains a matter to decide.  Smith 
argues that the State has forfeited the argument: Arizona,
he says, “gave no hint in the proceedings below that it be-
lieved  Rast’s  statements  were  anything  but  testimonial.” 
Reply Brief 3.  The State denies that assertion, pointing to
a passage about Williams in its lower court briefing.  See 
Brief for Arizona 39, n. 14.  The dispute is best addressed 
by a state court.  So we return the testimonial issue, includ-
ing the threshold forfeiture matter, to the Arizona Court of 
Appeals.

But  we  offer  a  few  thoughts,  based  on  the  arguments
made here, about the questions the state court might use-
fully  address  if  the  testimonial  issue  remains  live.    First, 
the court will need to consider exactly which of Rast’s state-
ments  are  at  issue.  In  this  Court,  the  parties  disputed 
whether  Longoni  was  reciting  from  Rast’s  notes  alone,  or 
from both her notes and final report.  See supra, at 8–9 (de-
scribing  those  documents).    In  Arizona’s  view,  everything
Longoni testified to came from Rast’s notes; although he at 
times used the word “report,” a close comparison of the doc-
uments and his testimony reveals (the State says) that he 
meant only the notes.  See Brief for Arizona 39–40; Tr. of 
Oral  Arg.  69–72;  see  also  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  39a–40a,
48a.  Smith  disagrees,  taking  Longoni’s  references  to  the 
“report,” as well as the notes, at face value.  According to
Smith,  Longoni  “relied  on  both”  documents  and  in  fact
“treated them as a unit,” with the notes “attached” to the 
report  as  “essentially  an  appendix.”    Reply  Brief  4;  Tr.  of 
Oral  Arg.  25,  98.    Resolving  that  dispute  might,  or  then
again  might  not,  affect  the  court’s  ultimate  disposition  of