level of their involvement; and (13) how SANEs are used by the particular hospital or facility where the interview or examination took place. This list of factual indicia is helpful to trial courts in making an admissibility determination under the Confrontation Clause, although it is by no means an exhaustive list. III. INADEQUATE RECORD In this case, the trial court erred by making its admissibility determination solely on the basis of the forensic form completed by Schneider, and by failing to consider whether the circumstances of the complainant’s statements, viewed objectively and in their totality, indicated that the statements were testimonial. Nor is the record sufficiently developed to make a proper determination. See People v Kreiner, 415 Mich 372, 379; 329 NW2d 716 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The record is limited to the arguments of
holding trial courts allowance of testimony under the present sense impression exception if error was harmless because statement was admissible under excited utterance exception holding that because the record in the case had not been developed sufficiently to determine whether a childs statement was admissible under the tender years exception a new trial was warranted holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that a mistrial was not warranted because the statement that the defendant had been in prison before was volunteered unexpected and added nothing to the governments case holding also that only a childs first statement made is admissible under the exception