State of Minnesota, vs.Daniel Irlas

OPINION

REYES, Judge

Appellant Daniel Irlas argues that the admission of his co-defendant Ernesto Salinas’s guilty-plea transcript at appellant’s criminal trial violated his right under the Confrontation Clause because Salinas was unavailable, and appellant was not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine him. Because we conclude that (1) Salinas was unavailable at trial,, (2) the admission of his guilty-plea transcript violated appellant’s right under the Confrontation Clause to confront witnesses against him, and (3) the admission constitutes reversible error, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

In…