In Langham v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction for possession of controlled substance. The appellant was arrested after police found cocaine residue in her house. The search was executed pursuant to a search warrant based on a confidential informant’s statements to police that a crack-cocaine enterprise was being operated out of the residence.
These statements were introduced through the testimony of Detective Smith over defendant’s hearsay and Crawford confrontation objections. Appellant was found guilty of possession of controlled substance less than one gram and sentenced to 18 months in state jail.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the Detective’s testimony recounting the out-of-court statements of the informant were testimonial in violation of the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court has identified three types of out-of-court statements that could be regarded as testimonial, including statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.