Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that for testimonial statements to be admissible under the forfeiture exception to hearsay, the defendant must have intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.

[2] The court reasoned that the report of domestic violence was admissible under the forfeiture rule codified in California Evidence Code § 1370 because Giles had presumably made the declarant unavailable by murdering her.

In a majority opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court held that a defendant only forfeited his confrontation rights when he intended to procure the unavailability of the witness.

The Court examined the history of the common law forfeiture right, finding that every case since 1666 required that the defendant intend to make the witness unavailable for trial.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas argued that the domestic violence report by the victim to the police was not testimonial and thus not barred by the confrontation clause.