and we hold that the inquiries at issue were permissible here. Young next argues that the firefighters’ questioning of Medrano was improper because it was formal in its nature: two firefighters asking Medrano questions at a fire station for forty-five minutes. To determine the level of formality, we look at how the questions were asked, and we look at where and when the “encounter occur[ed] — e.g., at or near the scene of the crime versus at a police station, during an ongoing emergency or afterwards.” Bryant, 131 S.Ct. at 1156; Martin, 885 N.E.2d at 21 (concluding that there was little formality to the situation because the declarant was questioned while she was hysterical and sitting by the side of the road with “blood all over her face”); of. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (<HOLDING>). Here, the firefighters first encountered
holding that the state could ask leading questions of its witness a codefendant who had entered a plea after witness initially refused to answer questions in violation of her plea agreement holding that later declarations during defendants confession leading officers to evidence of the crime constituted part of one continuous confession that began at the police station holding that when the victim calmly responded to questions at the police station with officers often asking leading questions the statements were testimonial holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding that there was no interrogation where the police asked only routine booking questions that did not relate even tangentially to criminal activity moreover there is no evidence that the defendant was particularly susceptible to these questions or that police somehow used the questions to elicit an incriminating response from the defendant