Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit armed bank robbery, armed bank robbery, and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Appellant was present at a “meeting” where guns were present and their use discussed, and he had a longstanding friendship with a coconspirator who had participated in previous armed bank robberies. The appellate court held that there was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to conclude that the use of firearms during a bank robbery was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant; that a co-conspirator’s statement made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not testimonial and its admission did not violate the defendant’s right to confront adverse witnesses; and that a witness’ brief, isolated reference to the defendant’s prior incarceration, followed immediately by a curative instruction, did not warrant a mistrial.