In Gonzalez V

Multiple Choice

In Gonzalez v. State, the Texas defendant had been accused of murdering two individuals, one of whom died at the scene and another, who died later. Prior to dying, one of the victims offered an excited utterance that described how the entries were received, who was the perpetrator, what he looked like, where the perpetrator's relatives lived, and noted that the perpetrator stole her truck. At Gonzalez' murder trial, he contended that the police officer should not be permitted to tell the court what the deceased victim told the officers at the crime scene. Gonzalez contended that the admission of the evidence of these victims' excited utterances violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals determined that:

A) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a Sixth Amendment right to be personally confronted with the witnesses against him or her and allowing police officers to tell what a victim told them constituted a violation of the constitutional rights of Gonzalez.
B) the right to confront and cross-examine had been violated because there was no proof that the woman victim knew that she was going to die when she made her excited utterances.
C) the defendant's right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses had not been violated by allowing police officers to testify about the excited utterance given by the dying victim concerning the identity of the defendant and the criminal activities performed by him on the day in question because the defendant had forfeited his right to complain by killing the victim.
D) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under the Sixth Amendment had been violated by allowing police officers to testify about the excited utterance given by the dying victim concerning the identity of the defendant and other matters because the defendant had neither waived no forfeited any of his constitutional rights.