Cited by

802; (“Statements that fall within a ‘firmly-rooted’ hearsay exception are assumed to be reliable and are therefore admissible.” (citation omitted)).

(state bears the burden of proving that a statement is not testimonial); (state bears the burden of proving that defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights were not violated); (state bears the burden of establishing witness unavailability and consequent necessity of hearsay evidence).

See, -08 (Minn. 2001) (reviewing evidence about the state’s failed efforts to produce a witness at trial to determine whether that witness was unavailable in the context of the Confrontation Clause).

1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (stating that confessions by an accomplice that shift or spread blame are inherently unreliable); -09 (Minn.2001) (same).

In completing a “harmless error impact” analysis, the inquiry is not whether the jury could have convicted the defendant without the error, but rather, what effect the error had on the jury’s verdict, “and more specifically, whether the jury’s verdict is ‘surely unattributable’ to [the error].” ().

“[T]he inquiry is not ‘whether a jury would have convicted the defendant without the error, rather * ⅜ ⅜ whether the error reasonably could have [had an impact on] * * * the jury’s decision.’ ” (quoting Juarez, d at 292 ).

(citing Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 136 , 119 S.Ct.

“A defendant is not automatically entitled to a new trial when his constitutional rights are violated.”

Bobadilla, d at 248 ; , 807 (Minn. 2001).

The inquiry is not whether the jury could have convicted the defendant without the error, but rather, what effect the error had on the jury’s verdict, “and more specifically, whether the jury’s verdict is ‘surely unattributable’ to [the error].” ().