2006-NMCERT-004, 139 N.M. 429, 134 P.3d 120. After the trial, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). While this case was pending on appeal to this Court and during briefing, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006). We address three general issues: (1) whether two of the victim’s out-of-court statements were inadmissi ble, because they were testimonial under Davis and Crawford; (2) whether, even if inadmissible, their admission was harmless error; and (3) whether Defendant forfeited his right to object to the admission of those statements. See State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, 136 N.M. 309, 98 P.3d 699 (<HOLDING>). We affirm. I. Background {2} The facts
holding that the trial court committed no error in sustaining objection to plaintiffs testimony that the water had been there for some time because the plaintiff had no personal knowledge of how long the puddle had been there holding that the trust fund doctrine was inapplicable where the corporation had filed bankruptcy holding the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing inapplicable when a witness had been deported during the period of time the defendant had been a fugitive holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled holding that it was not fatal when the notice of appeal did not state that the transcript had been ordered when in actuality it had been ordered