¶ 7. Even assuming the issue was not barred, there would be no merit to the confrontation issue. It is clear that the confidential informant did not testify. The right to confront witnesses does not extend beyond those witnesses called to testify against an accused. Smothers v. State, 738 So.2d 242 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 1998). Consequently, there is no merit to Sweet's contention that he was denied his right to confrontation as secured under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Where no effort is made to offer an informant's testimony, either in person or through hearsay, a defendant has not been deprived of his right to confront and cross-examine that witness. In Smothers v. State, 738 So.2d 242 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 1998), this Court held that "[s]ince the informant was not put on the stand, the trial court did not deprive [defendant] of his right to confront and cross-examine said witness." ¶ 13.