State v. Belone, 285 P.3d 378

Begay died Aug. 1, 2006 from peritonitis due to blunt abdominal trauma, alleged to be caused by Belone.
Prosecution alleged July 29 beating with a board/table leg and Begay identified Belone as her attacker.
Begay told Bowers and medical personnel and later officers that Belone beat her; an audio hospital interview was recorded.
District court initially deemed some statements non-testimonial but later ruled Begay’s statements to officers forfeited; trial proceeded with those statements.
Court of Appeals held that forfeiture by wrongdoing did not satisfy the proper standard and that admission of testimonial statements was error but harmless.
Supreme Court reverses, finding the Confrontation Clause error not harmless and remanding for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation from admitting testimonial statements.	State argues forfeiture by wrongdoing supports admission.	Belone argues forfeiture was not proven under Giles/Jones.	Reversed; error not harmless; remand for new trial.
Harmlessness standard for Confrontation Clause error.	Court should apply constitutional harmlessness beyond reasonable doubt.	Error was harmless due to other evidence.	Not harmless; require new trial.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements violate Confrontation Clause unless available or cross-examined)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing requires intent to prevent testimony)
State v. Jones, 287 Kan. 559 (2008) (applies Giles; did not apply forfeiture absent intent to prevent testimony)
State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (constitutional harmless error standard; analyzes effect on substantial rights)
State v. Nguyen, 281 Kan. 702 (2006) (earlier harmlessness framework for comparison)