In State v. Bankston, 63 N.J. 263, 307 A.2d 65 (1973), the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged the well-settled rule that the right of confrontation is not violated when a police officer explains the reasons he apprehended a suspect or went to the scene of a crime by stating that he did so "upon information received." Id. at 268, 307 A.2d 65. This type of general testimony was said to be admissible to show that the officer was not acting arbitrarily. Ibid. However, when an officer becomes more specific by repeating what some other person told him concerning a crime by the accused, both the hearsay rule and the right of confrontation are violated. Ibid. The Court expanded the applicability of the rule by determining that a specific hearsay statement is not required in order to create an impermissible inference of guilt. Id. at 271, 307 A.2d 65. The Court reasoned, "when the logical implication to be drawn from the testimony leads the jury to believe that a non-testifying witness has given police evidence of the accused's guilt, the testimony should be disallowed as hearsay." Ibid.