With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". apparently found that all of the statements were admissible under Roberts. On appeal, Defendant argues that admission of four of the statements (the grand jury testimony, the stationhouse statement, the statement to the SANE practitioner, and the statement to Lewandowski at the scene) violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause, as that Clause was interpreted in Crawford. The parties agree that Crawford applies in this case. We begin by addressing several preliminary matters, and we then analyze each statement under Crawford. STANDARD OF REVIEW {12} Defendant’s claim that the victim’s statements were admitted in violation of his Confrontation Clause rights presents a constitutional question that we review de novo. State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038, ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806, 14 P.3d 1282 (<HOLDING>). We review the trial court’s decision to admit

A: holding that antitrust standing is question of law reviewed de novo
B: holding questions of law related to class certification are reviewed de novo
C: holding that issues concerning the sufficiency of an indictment are reviewed de novo
D: holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo
D.