Clause rights because the message was used as evidence of her guilt. We review Confrontation Clause challenges de novo. Snelling, 225 Ariz. at 187 ¶ 18, 236 P.3d at 414. ¶ 80 The Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial hearsay unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. As Forde concedes, the message was not testimonial. “Testimony” means “[a] solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact.” Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The text message reflected Gaxiola’s intent to warn Forde of police activity; it did not seek to establish or prove a fact. Cf. State v. Damper, 223 Ariz. 572, 575-76 ¶ 12, 225 P.3d 1148, 1151-52 (App.2010) (<HOLDING>). The court did not violate Forde’s
holding that text message from victim before murder asking friend to come over and advising that she and defendant had been fighting was not testimonial because nothing suggests victim intended or believed it might later be used in a prosecution or at a trial holding that evidence the victim tried to keep defendant from fleeing the scene of a crime and defendant killed victim in order to escape supported the finding that murder was committed to avoid arrest holding evidence sufficient where defendant claimed he was out of state visiting a friend at time of trial and mistakenly believed that the case had been continued holding that the victim impact and victim vulnerability aggravators were not overbroad and explaining that though the concepts of victim impact and victim vulnerability may well be relevant in every case evidence of victim vulnerability and victim impact in a particular case is inherently individualized holding the harmed victim need not be the victim of the offense of conviction