Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 24.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

21 

Opinion of the Court 

Smith’s Confrontation Clause claim.  We note only that be-
fore the court can decide the primary purpose of the out-of-
court statements introduced at Smith’s trial, it needs to de-
termine exactly what those statements were. 

In  then  addressing  the  statements’  primary  purpose—
why Rast created the report or notes—the court should con-
sider the range of recordkeeping activities that lab analysts 
engage in.  See generally supra, at 3 (describing formula-
tions of the testimonial inquiry).  After all, some records of 
lab  analysts  will  not  have  an  evidentiary  purpose.    The 
United States as amicus curiae notes, for example, that lab 
records may come into being primarily to comply with la-
boratory accreditation requirements or to facilitate internal 
review and quality control.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 51.  Or some 
analysts’ notes may be written simply as reminders to self.
See id., at 20, 52.  In those cases, the record would not count 
as testimonial.  To do so, the document’s primary purpose
must  have  “a  focus  on  court.”  Id.,  at  52.  And  again,  the 
state court on remand should make that assessment as to 
each record whose substance Longoni conveyed. 

IV 

Our  holding  today  follows  from  all  this  Court  has  held 
about the Confrontation Clause’s application to forensic ev-
idence.  A State may not introduce the testimonial out-of-
court statements of a forensic analyst at trial, unless she is
unavailable  and  the  defendant  has  had  a  prior  chance  to
cross-examine her.  See Crawford, 541 U. S., at 68; Melen-
dez-Diaz, 557 U. S., at 311.  Neither may the State intro-
duce those statements through a surrogate analyst who did
not participate in their creation.  See Bullcoming, 564 U. S., 
at  663.  And  nothing  changes  if  the  surrogate—as  in  this
case—presents the out-of-court statements as the basis for 
his  expert  opinion.  Those  statements,  as  we  have  ex-
plained, come into evidence for their truth—because only if