In this case, we consider whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed defendant’s conviction and remanded for a new trial. It did so on the grounds that the circuit court erred by admitting hearsay testimony on the theory that defendant’s conduct amounted to forfeiture by wrongdoing under the Michigan Rules of Evidence.1 We agree that the circuit court erred by admitting the challenged statements, because the prosecution failed to demonstrate that defendant had the specific intent to, and in fact did, cause the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.2 Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals judgment.
*107On August 18, 2010, a bible school teacher (Gonzales) filed a police report concerning disclosures made to her the day before by a four-year-old girl (CB). The disclosures suggested that CB had been sexually abused by defendant, her father. Defendant promptly moved out of the home he shared with CB and her mother. Defendant was arrested on September 2, 2010, and he had no further contact with CB.
After the initial disclosure to Gonzales, CB was interviewed twice, first by a forensic interviewer on September 1, 2010, and later by a sexual-assault nurse examiner. In both interviews CB indicated that defendant had engaged in sexual conduct with her. A medical examination did not find evidence of sexual intercourse.
CB did not testify at the preliminary examination. Nevertheless, defendant was bound over to circuit court.3 At trial, the court permitted Gonzales to testify to CB’s out-of-court statements concerning the suspected abuse before CB testified.4 Gonzales testified that CB had told her that “Dave Junior” hurt her by licking and digitally penetrating her “butt.” After *108Gonzales testified, the prosecutor attempted to elicit testimony from CB four times.5 All four attempts were unsuccessful. CB left the witness chair, hid under the podium, refused to answer questions asked by the prosecutor, indicated that she would not tell the truth, stated that she was fearful of the jury, and expressed a desire to leave the courtroom.
The trial court then held a hearing to determine whether there was a separate basis for admitting Gonzales’s conditionally admitted testimony, because MRE 803A required CB to testify.6 The prosecutor argued, and the court agreed, that defendant had rendered CB unavailable to testify through his own wrongdoing, and the court admitted Gonzales’s testimony under MRE 804(b)(6). The trial court based its ruling on a video recording of CB’s interview with the forensic interviewer: When asked if defendant had said anything during the alleged abuse, CB stated that defendant told her “not to tell,” and that “[defendant] didn’t want me to tell nobody” or else she would “get in trouble.” The trial court determined that defendant’s instructions, as recounted by CB, were sufficient to find forfeiture by wrongdoing.
*109The trial court also determined that CB was unavailable to testify, a condition for admissibility under MRE 804(b)(6), “because, among other things, of her infirmity, her youth, to be able to testify here in court and the fear, frankly, that she has of testifying here in court.”7
Having found Gonzales’s testimony admissible under MRE 804(b)(6), the trial court also concluded that defendant had forfeited his confrontation right.8 The court admitted the testimony of the sexual-assault nurse examiner and the transcript and video recording of CB’s forensic interview with the forensic interviewer. CB never testified. There was no other evidence of the abuse apart from the hearsay testimony. Defendant testified that he did not abuse CB.
The jury convicted defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b. The Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion per cu-riam,9 concluding that the circuit court erred in its application of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing analysis. The Court of Appeals concluded that the prosecutor had failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant had both the specific intent to cause CB’s unavailability, and that the wrongdoing did, in fact, cause CB’s unavailability. We granted leave to appeal.10
*110II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.11 Preliminary questions of law, including whether a rule of evidence precludes the admission of evidence, are reviewed de novo.12 Likewise, interpretation of a court rule is a question of law that we review de novo.13 A preserved error in the admission of evidence does not warrant reversal unless “ ‘after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear’ that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.”14
III. LEGAL BACKGROUND
A defendant can forfeit his right to exclude hearsay by his own wrongdoing.15 MRE 804(b)(6) provides that a statement is not excluded by the general rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable, and the “statement [is] offered against a party that has engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.”16 This rule, commonly known as the forfeiture-*111by-wrongdoing rule, was adopted in 2001 and is substantially similar to its federal counterpart, FRE 804(b)(6).17
As the United States Supreme Court explained in Giles, forfeiture by wrongdoing has its roots in the common law, and is based on the maxim that “no one should be permitted to take advantage of his wrong.”18 The forfeiture doctrine not only provides a basis for an exception to the rule against hearsay; it is also an exception to a defendant’s constitutional confrontation right. Insofar as it applies to the Sixth Amendment, however, the forfeiture doctrine requires that the defendant must have specifically intended that his wrongdoing would render the witness unavailable to testify.19
In Giles, the defendant was convicted of murder in the death of his ex-girlfriend. He testified that he had killed her in self-defense. The prosecution introduced statements the victim had made to police officers several weeks before the homicide, in which she described a death threat the defendant made to her. The California Supreme Court determined that the statements were testimonial, but that defendant had forfeited his right to confront the victim because he had committed the murder for which he was on trial, and because his intentional criminal act had caused the victim to be unavailable to testify.20 The United States Supreme *112Court reversed, holding that for a defendant to forfeit his confrontation right by his or her wrongdoing, the defendant must have had “in mind the particular purpose of making the witness unavailable.”21
Since its adoption in 2001, only two published Michigan appellate cases have discussed the application of Michigan’s forfeiture rule, MRE 804(b)(6). Both preceded Giles. In People v Bauder, the Court of Appeals discussed MRE 804(b)(6) but did not address its proper application.22 There, the defendant argued that his confrontation right had been violated when the trial court admitted hearsay testimony.23 The Court of Appeals ultimately determined that the challenged statements were nontestimonial and properly admitted as statements of a then-existing mental condition under MRE 803(3).24 Yet in discussing the forfeiture issue, the Bauder Court rejected the defendant’s argument that forfeiture by wrongdoing for purposes of the Confrontation Clause required a showing of intent.25 That approach was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Giles.26
The Court of Appeals has specifically addressed forfeiture by wrongdoing more recently in People v Jones.27 *113There, the Court of Appeals held that to admit hearsay under the forfeiture doctrine, the prosecution was required to prove: “(1) that the defendant engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing; (2) that the wrongdoing was intended to procure the declarant’s unavailability; and (3) that the wrongdoing did procure the unavailability.”28 The Jones Court further held that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied, consistent with a majority of the federal circuit courts.29 While Jones preceded Giles, its application of forfeiture by wrongdoing as incorporating a specific intent element is consistent with Giles.30 We agree with the Jones Court that MRE 804(b)(6) incorporates a specific intent requirement. For the rule to apply, a defendant must have “engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.”31
We note that the Court of Appeals explicitly avoided defendant’s Confrontation Clause claim in this case in recognition of our constitutional avoidance doctrine.32 It is nonetheless readily apparent that evidence offered under the forfeiture exception will very regularly be testimonial and subject to Sixth Amendment scrutiny. As forfeiture by wrongdoing is the only recognized *114exception to the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses,33 the constitutional question will often go hand-in-hand with the evidentiary question, as it did in the trial court here.
Because the forfeiture doctrine can provide both an exception to the general rule against hearsay and an exception to the confrontation right, the United States Constitution does not prevent the states from crafting a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception for nontestimonial hearsay that does not require any proof of a defendant’s specific intent.34 But the plain language of our court rule in fact incorporates the specific intent requirement at issue in Giles.35
*115IV ANALYSIS
To admit evidence under MRE 804(b)(6), the prosecution must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the defendant engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing; (2) the wrongdoing was intended to procure the declarant’s unavailability; and (3) the wrongdoing did procure the unavailability.36 For purposes of our inquiry, we assume that the trial court correctly found that defendant did, in fact, engage in wrongdoing.
Turning to the second element, it is also alleged that during the alleged abuse defendant instructed CB “not to tell” anyone and warned her that if she told, she would “get in trouble.” The question is whether these threats, made contemporaneously with the abuse but before any report or investigation, require a finding that defendant “intended to ... procure the unavailability of [CB] as a witness.”37 The prosecution concedes that, the trial court did not make a specific finding with regard to defendant’s intent. Rather, it asks this Court to hold that the necessary finding was implicit in the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and is compelled by the record. We are not persuaded.
Even if the record were to support an express finding that the trial court never made, the record does not compel that finding. Defendant immediately left the family home after Gonzales reported the suspected abuse. He had no contact with CB whatsoever once the conduct was reported, and nobody else attempted on his *116behalf to influence CB not to testify. There is no evidence or allegation that defendant attempted to influence CB directly or indirectly apart from the contemporaneous statements at issue.
The timing of defendant’s alleged wrongdoing is also relevant to our conclusion that the record does not compel a finding that defendant had the specific intent to procure CB’s unavailability. Defendant’s instruction to CB not to report the abuse was made before there was any indication that the abuse had been reported or discovered. While the timing of the wrongdoing is by itself not determinative, it can inform the inquiry: a defendant’s wrongdoing after the underlying criminal activity has been reported or discovered is inherently more suspect, and can give rise to a strong inference of intent to cause a declarant’s unavailability.38
Without the guidance of an explicit trial court finding to shed light on the record, defendant’s contemporaneous statements to CB are as consistent with the inference that defendant’s intention was that the alleged abuse go undiscovered as they are with an inference that defendant specifically intended to prevent CB from *117testifying.39 Further, assuming defendant knew that CB would not disclose the abuse because of his directive, that knowledge is not necessarily the equivalent of the specific intent to cause CB’s unavailability to testify as required by MRE 804(b)(6). Attempting to equate the two in every circumstance improperly assumes that a defendant’s knowledge is always the same as a defendant’s purpose. In other words, whether a person in defendant’s position would reasonably foresee that the wrongdoing might cause CB’s unavailability is separate and distinct from whether defendant intended to procure the declarant’s unavailability to testify at trial. We interpret the specific intent requirement of MRE 804(b)(6) — to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness — as requiring the prosecution to show that defendant acted with, at least in part, the particular purpose to cause CB’s unavailability, rather than mere knowledge that the wrongdoing may cause the witness’s unavailability. Without the aid of a specific factual finding from the trial court in this case, we are unable to determine from the record whether defendant had the requisite specific intent.40
*118We are mindful that prosecuting child sexual abuse cases with young victims presents acute complications. But we are not persuaded by the prosecution’s argument that public policy and the nature of the alleged crime demand that we infer intent under the facts of this case. The Giles Court expressly rejected a similar argument in the context of domestic violence, and refused to create a presumption of intent.41 At the same time, we recognize that the intent analysis must ultimately be made on a case-by-case basis.42 For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the facts of this case require us to conclude that the MRE 804(b)(6)-required specific intent can necessarily be inferred from the trial court’s findings.43
*119We also conclude that the trial court’s application of the third element required to satisfy MRE 804(b)(6)— that defendant’s conduct in fact caused CB’s unavailability — undermines its conclusion that the hearsay testimony was admissible pursuant to MRE 804(b)(6). As the trial court recognized in declaring CB unavailable, her inability to testify was based on her “infirmity, her youth,” and her fear of testifying in open court. The trial court did not include defendant’s wrongdoing among the reasons for CB’s inability to testify. In fact, the objective evidence about defendant’s alleged wrongdoing would tend to support the conclusion that defendant’s wrongdoing did not cause CB’s inability to testify. Defendant allegedly directed CB to “not tell,” yet she did not follow that direction. Instead, she told the bible school teacher, the forensic interviewer, and the sexual-assault nurse examiner. Moreover, at one point during an interview, CB stated that defendant had told her “not to tell” anybody because she would “get in trouble,” but then immediately acknowledged that she “won’t get in trouble” for telling. Because the trial court’s findings about the reasons for CB’s unavailability did not include defendant’s wrongdoing and are not clearly erroneous, we conclude that the prosecutor has not satisfied the causation element of MRE 804(b)(6).
Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the admission of testimony regarding CB’s statements was *120outcome determinative. Aside from the improperly admitted hearsay testimony, the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of defendant’s alleged criminal sexual conduct. Given the lack of any physical evidence, third-party eyewitnesses, or testimony from CB, we conclude that it is more probable than not that the erroneous admission of the hearsay testimony was outcome determinative.
VI. CONCLUSION
We hold that the prosecutor failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant’s conduct both was intended to, and did, cause CB’s unavailability. Thus, admission of CB’s hearsay statements pursuant to MRE 804(b)(6) was an abuse of discretion, and the error was outcome determinative. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for a new trial.
Young, C.J., and Cavanagh, Markman, Kelly, Zahra, and VIVIANO, JJ., concurred with MCCORMACK, J.