## Facts

- A three-year-old child (L.P.) attended a preschool program in Cleveland and arrived with visible injuries, including a bloodshot eye and red marks on his face.
- When asked by two teachers what happened, L.P. initially said he fell, then identified “Dee” (Darius Clark, the mother’s boyfriend) as the person who caused his injuries.
- The teachers were mandatory reporters under state law and contacted the child-abuse hotline.
- A social worker removed L.P. and his younger sister from the home and took them to a hospital, where additional signs of abuse were discovered.
- Clark was charged with assault, child endangerment, and related offenses.
- The trial court found L.P. incompetent to testify due to age but admitted the teachers’ testimony recounting L.P.’s identification of Clark over a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause objection.
- Clark was convicted on all but one count and sentenced to a lengthy prison term.
- Ohio appellate courts reversed, reasoning the statements were testimonial because the teachers functioned as law-enforcement agents due to mandatory-reporting obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether a person’s statutory duty to report suspected child abuse makes that person an agent of law enforcement for Confrontation Clause purposes.
2. Whether a very young child’s out-of-court statements to teachers identifying an abuser, made in response to questions about visible injuries, are “testimonial” under the Sixth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the state-court judgment and remanded.
- The Court held the child’s statements to his teachers were not testimonial and their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
- The Court rejected the view that mandatory-reporting status alone converts teachers into law-enforcement agents.
- Concurrences: Justice Scalia (joined by Justice Ginsburg) concurred in the judgment; Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment on the ground that the statements lacked the required formality.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of out-of-court statements only if they are “testimonial,” unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
- Whether a statement is testimonial turns on an objective assessment of all relevant circumstances, including whether its primary purpose was to create an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony.
- Statements made in an informal setting to address an apparent ongoing threat to a child’s safety, including identifying a potential abuser to prevent further harm, are generally non-testimonial.
- A mandatory obligation to report child abuse does not, by itself, make teachers or similar caregivers agents of law enforcement for Confrontation Clause analysis; the questioner’s non-police status remains strongly relevant.
- The declarant’s age is significant to the primary-purpose inquiry because very young children are unlikely to intend their statements as evidence for prosecution.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a preschool child’s identification of an abuser to teachers responding to signs of injury was non-testimonial, and that mandatory-reporting duties did not transform the teachers into law-enforcement agents; therefore, admitting the teachers’ testimony about the child’s statements did not violate the Sixth Amendment.


Ohio v. Clark, 576 U.S. 237 (2015)