With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fields and [his accomplice] .... ” Tichenor also testified that Fields’s accomplice told Tichenor that he and Fields had driven from Waco to Killeen that day to buy $4500 in crack cocaine. Tichenor further stated that Fields’s accomplice admitted to firing a shot in the car in order to scare them. The statements related by Tichenor are testimonial for the same reasons that the statements related by January are testimonial. The investigating police officers responded to do an after-the-fact criminal investigation. They were not addressing an ongoing emergency. The declarants described past criminal conduct to persons they knew were police officers. Finally, the record implies that the statements at issue were given in direct response to questioning. This testimony, like Officer J 2002) (<HOLDING>); State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 140 P.3d 930,

A: holding that the confrontation clause applies through the finding of guilt but not to sentencing even when that sentence is the death penalty
B: holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing
C: holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment
D: holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings
A.