Pamela Shareka Langham, Appellant v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Court held that the confidential informant’s out‑of‑court statements were testimonial and their admission violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and that the Court of Appeals erred in deeming the error harmless without a proper analysis. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded for a proper harmless‑error review. Two dissenting opinions argued that the statements could be admitted as background evidence and that the error was harmless, opposing the majority’s reversal.