v. State, 53 So.3d 165, 167 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). Accordingly, “It is well settled that[, when offered for the truth of the matter asserted,] a non-testifying codefendant’s statement to police implicating the accused in the crime is inadmissible against the accused; it does not fall within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule and ... [it] violates the accused’s confrontation rights. See Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986); Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); R.L.B. v. State, 647 So.2d 803 (Ala.Crim. App.1994); Ephraim v. State, 627 So.2d 1102 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Jackson v. State, 791 So.2d 979, 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). See also Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 139, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Hillard, 53 So.3d at 169 (holding that a
holding that the confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition precedent to the admission of the outofcourt statements of a nontestifying coconspirator holding that the sixth amendment right of confrontation applies to all three phases of the capital trial and that the admission of  hearsay statements of codefendants in the penalty phase violated the confrontation clause 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 that when deciding whether the admission of a declarants outofcourt statements violates the confrontation clause courts should independently review whether the governments proffered guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the demands of the clause holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights