Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-899_97be.pdf
Page Number: 26

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–899 
_________________ 

JASON SMITH, PETITIONER v. ARIZONA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 
ARIZONA, DIVISION ONE 

[June 21, 2024] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part. 
I join the Court in all but Part III of its opinion.  The Sixth 
Amendment’s Confrontation Clause provides: “In all crimi-
nal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be 
confronted  with  the  witnesses  against  him.”    This  Clause 
bars the admission of an absent witness’s testimonial state-
ments  for  their  truth,  unless  the  witness  is  unavailable 
and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-
examine  that  witness.  See  Crawford  v.  Washington,  541 
U. S. 36, 50–56, 60, n. 9 (2004).  Today, the Court correctly 
concludes  that  “[w]hen  an  expert  conveys  an  absent  ana-
lyst’s  statements  in  support  of  his  opinion, and  the  state-
ments  provide  that  support  only  if  true,  then  the  state-
ments come into evidence for their truth.”  Ante, at 2; see 
also Williams v. Illinois, 567 U. S. 50, 106 (2012) (THOMAS, 
J.,  concurring  in  judgment).    But,  a  question  remains
whether  that  analyst’s  statements  were  testimonial. 
I 
agree with the Court that, because the courts below did not 
consider  this  question, we  should  remand  for  the  Arizona
Court of Appeals to answer it in the first instance.  Ante, at 
19–20.  But, I disagree with the Court’s suggestion that the
Arizona Court of Appeals should answer that question by 
looking to each statement’s “primary purpose.”  Ante, at 20– 
21. 

I continue to adhere to my view that “the Confrontation