statements. The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const, amend. VI. This right, however, is subject to certain well-established exceptions. For example, the Supreme Court has held that the Confrontation Clause “ ‘permits, where necessary, the admission of certain statements against a defendant despite the defendant’s inability to confront the declarant at trial[.]’” Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (quoting Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 847, 110 S.Ct. 3157, 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990)). See also Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 63, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Firmly rooted hearsay exceptions will
holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge recognizing that a literal reading of the confrontation clause would abrogate virtually every hearsay exception a result long rejected as unintended and too extreme holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis