See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶20, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72 (“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.”). {19} At the outset, we note that the district court’s ruling applies only to the statements made during the SANE examination. We need not and do not address the admissibility of any of Victim’s statements made at the initial consultation at the pediatric center. 1. Our Holding in Ortega {20} In Ortega, we considered whether an unavailable victim’s statements to a SANE nurse about the details of the criminal offenses offered by the state under Rule 11-803(D), were precluded by the Confrontation Clause and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 54, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, unlike the situation in Ortega,
holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination holding that when declarant is unavailable outofcourt statements that are testimonial are inadmissible even if they meet an exception to the hearsay rules holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances