State v. Brist

OPINION

COLLINS, Judge.*

Appellant challenges her convictions of controlled-substance crime, arguing that the district court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by admitting into evidence a recorded statement that a nontestifying co-conspirator made to a confidential police informant. Appellant also argues that the district court erred by placing certain conditions on her executed sentence. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

FACTS

The state charged appellant Amy Lynn Brist with six counts of controlled-substance crime, stemming from a series of methamphetamine…