State of Minnesota v. Justin James Holinka

Syllabus

In this appeal from a final judgment of conviction for first-degree controlled- substance sale, appellant Justin James Holinka raises three arguments to challenge his conviction. First, he argues that the district court committed reversible plain error by allowing investigators to testify about an out-of-court statement identifying Holinka as the seller, which was made by an investigator who did not testify at trial, because the evidence was inadmissible hearsay and violated Holinka's rights under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution. Second, he argues that, even if the hearsay and Confrontation Clause errors were not individually prejudicial, taken cumulatively, they deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Finally, Holinka argues that his trial counsel was ineffective because his counsel did not object to the testimony. We affirm.