"[I]f a confrontation clause violation is found, the violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis." Sanders v. State, 228 So.3d 888, 890 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Conners v. State, 92 So.3d 676, 684 (¶20) (Miss. 2012)). "Where the improperly admitted evidence is largely cumulative of other evidence before the jury, and the evidence presented against the defendant, taken as a whole, is overwhelming, the error may be harmless."

He further testified that he was visiting Fields, who he knew was a drug dealer, and that she asked him to get a substance off the table and bring it to her. He testified that he did so, but that he was not paying attention to what was in the small plastic bag. Sanders maintained that he gave the substance to Fields, not White, and that Fields gave the substance to the CI. Sanders denied being called "G" and denied receiving any money as part of a transaction.Sanders v. State, 228 So. 3d 888, 889-90 (Miss. Ct. App.), reh'g denied (June 13, 2017), cert. denied, 223 So. 3d 787 (Miss. 2017).

"[I]f a confrontation clause violation is found, the violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis." Sanders v. State, 228 So.3d 888, 890 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Conners v. State, 92 So.3d 676, 684 (¶20) (Miss. 2012)). "Where the improperly admitted evidence is largely cumulative of other evidence before the jury, and the evidence presented against the defendant, taken as a whole, is overwhelming, the error may be harmless." Id. at 891 (¶13).

¶13. Upon review, if a Confrontation Clause violation is found, the violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis. Sanders v. State, 228 So.3d 888, 890 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Conners v. State, 92 So.3d 676, 684 (¶20) (Miss. 2012)). Thus, even if it is determined that a violation has occurred

[An appellate c]ourt will rule on the merits on the rare occasions where (1) the record affirmatively shows ineffectiveness of constitutional dimensions, or (2) the parties stipulate that the record is adequate to allow the appellate court to make the finding without consideration of the findings of fact of the trial judge. Sanders v. State, 228 So. 3d 888, 892 (¶17) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Witcher v. State, 863 So. 2d 776, 825 (¶171) (Miss. 2003)). "We may also address such claims on direct appeal when the record affirmatively shows that the claims are without merit."

"Where the improperly admitted evidence is largely cumulative of other evidence before the jury, and the evidence presented against the defendant, taken as a whole, is overwhelming, the error may be harmless." Sanders v. State, 228 So.3d 888, 891 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017). To prevail on a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, "[a] defendant must demonstrate that [her] counsel's performance was [(1)] deficient and [(2)] that the deficiency prejudiced the defense of the case."

Nevertheless, we find such error is harmless. SeeSanders v. State , 228 So. 3d 888, 890 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) ("Upon review, if a Confrontation Clause violation is found, the violation is subject to a harmless-error analysis."). An error will be deemed harmless "where ‘the same result would have been reached had it not existed.’ "

Accordingly, even if Keys's statement meets the evidentiary reliability rules set forth in Rule 804(b)(3) or Rule 804(b)(5), these rules do not circumvent a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Smith , 986 So. 2d at 298 (¶26) (recognizing that " Crawford holds that when dealing with testimonial evidence, a finding of reliability does not create an exception to the Confrontation Clause") (citing Crawford , 541 U.S. at 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354 )); seeSanders v. State , 228 So. 3d 888, 891-92 (¶¶12-16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (finding that the circuit court erred when it admitted witness's testimonial statement in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment; but finding error harmless under the circumstances of that case). The trial court primarily relied upon United States v. Thompson , 286 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 2002), in determining that the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception applied.

Accordingly, even if Keys's statement meets the evidentiary reliability rules set forth in Rule 804(b)(3) or Rule 804(b)(5), these rules do not circumvent a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Smith , 986 So. 2d at 298 (¶26) (recognizing that " Crawford holds that when dealing with testimonial evidence, a finding of reliability does not create an exception to the Confrontation Clause" ) (citing Crawford , 541 U.S. at 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354 ); seeSanders v. State , 228 So. 3d 888, 891-92 (¶¶12-16) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (finding that the circuit court erred when it admitted witness's testimonial statement in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, but finding error harmless under the circumstances of that case).