Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” The Confrontation Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). In Mattox v. United States, the first case interpreting the Confrontation Clause, the United States Supr 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (same); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (stating demonstration of unavailabili ty of witness is not necessary prerequisite to admission of certain hearsay to avoid violation of Confrontation Clause); California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Crandall, supra, 120 N.J. 649, 577 A.2d 483
holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause holding prior statement subject to crossexamination when made does not violate confrontation clause holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation