State v. Bester

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that his unpreserved confrontation claim concerning a nontestifying gunshot-residue analyst failed because the record did not show whether the analyst’s materials were testimonial. It also rejected the confrontation claim based on the prosecutor’s cross-examination questions because the questions did not introduce the absent witnesses’ statements into evidence and were used for impeachment. The court further found no prosecutorial impropriety in questions about weather and statements by the defendant’s acquaintances, although it cautioned the state to phrase such questions carefully.