State v. Brist, 812 N.W.2d 51

Brist challenges six drug-conspiracy convictions on Confrontation Clause grounds after a recording of her coconspirator Garcia is admitted at trial.
Five controlled meth buys were made from Brist’s boyfriend Garcia by a confidential informant; Brist and Garcia were arrested after the fifth buy.
The State admitted an audio recording of Garcia speaking to the informant from the first buy, under Minn. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as a coconspirator statement.
Garcia did not testify; Brist had no opportunity to cross-examine him; the informant testified about the recording’s contents.
Garcia’s remark, “a quarter that she owes ya,” allegedly connected Brist to the conspiracy and was used in closing arguments.
The court of appeals partially affirmed and remanded for sentence-modification authority; the supreme question is whether Bourjaily governs the Confrontation Clause issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bourjaily governs the Confrontation Clause issue	Brist argues Crawford overruns Bourjaily; lack of independent reliability inquiry.	The State contends Bourjaily is directly on point and binding.	Bourjaily remains good law and controls.

Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987) (conspiracy statements fall outside general hearsay and Confrontation Clause scrutiny when admissible under 801(d)(2)(E))
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (overruled Roberts' reliability approach; testimonial statements require confrontation unless unavailability and prior cross-examination)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006) (non-testimonial statements not subjected to Confrontation Clause constraints)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (plurality endorsing Bourjaily’s continuing vitality)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (Confrontation Clause applies to forensic certificates regardless of business-records framework)