Q&A Hero

Question

Case 7.3
Police respond to the scene of an apparent arson incident which involved a vacant commercial office building. The fire was discovered at 3:30 a.m. by a passing patrol unit, shortly after it had started. The initial officers on scene found all exterior doors locked and made forced entry to check for potential victims.
Fire officials report signs and evidence of accelerants near each stairwell. An empty kerosene can was found outside the structure, in the bushes by the property line. A premises history reveals that the property has been vacant for almost a year and has been for sale twice as long. Town records show several denied zoning and building adjustment applications over the past two years. There are numerous property maintenance violations for the property as well.
Detectives following up on the case find the property owner Slim Shady uncooperative and claiming he knows nothing about the fire. He states that he was at home the entire night, hanging with his partner Rico Tubbs. Background investigations reveal that Mr. Shady also operates Shady Flooring and Paint. He owns a working van with the markings "Shady Flooring and Paint". Detectives also discover that Mr. Shady increased his insurance of the incident property six months prior to the fire.
Detectives interview Slim Shady's neighbor who reports seeing Mr. Tubbs vehicle in the driveway. He also reports hearing a vehicle pull into the driveway and two males arguing about a can. The neighbor recognized the voice of Mr. Shady and states that Mr. Shady was yelling at the other male for leaving a can behind. According to the neighbor, the other male said that he threw it into the bushes with all the other garbage.
Detectives question Mr. Tubbs, who initially states that he and Mr. Shady were hanging out at Mr. Shady's house all night. Detectives re-interview Mr. Tubbs several days later and tell him that they can place Mr. Shady, his work van, and another person going to and from the scene; and that they have retrieved surveillance video from several stores adjacent to the crime scene. Mr. Tubbs then changes his story, claiming that he just took a ride with Mr. Shady, who had told him that he left some flooring supplies in the building. He claims he was unaware of Mr. Shady's intentions or actions until after he ran out of the building and threw an empty can of kerosene at Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs further states "Slim threatened to mess me up because I was already on parole". Ultimately, Mr. Shady and Mr. Tubbs are charged with the arson.

At trail, could the detective testify to the neighbor's out of court statement regarding hearing Mr. Shady yelling about the other person leaving a can behind if the neighbor were not available at trial as he is out of the country?
a. Yes, because the testimony was not offered as evidence of the truth of the matter asserted.
b. Yes, because the testimony does not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
c. No, because it requires the fact finder to draw inferences as to the defendants' intent.
d. No, because the defense cannot cross-examine the neighbor who made the statement.