[U] State v. Keodara

Khampeth Keodara challenges his conviction and sentence for residential burglary and second degree malicious mischief. His challenge to the conviction arises from a police officers testimony about what a tracking dogs actions told him. However, that testimony did not violate Keodaras right of confrontation because the officer was not relaying a declarants testimonial statements. Nor did the officers unchallenged opinion testimony about the track constitute an impermissible opinion on guilt that denied Keodara a fair trial. Keodaras challenges to his sentence are controlled by our recent decisions in State v. Surge and State v. Weber. We affirm.