Admission of video and audio recordings reflecting a drug sale didn’t violate the defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. The video and photographs made from it were admitted as silent witnesses. The video does not reflect any actions that could be construed as an assertion, and accordingly it is not hearsay. An informant’s statements asking for specific drugs were offered to establish context for the defendant’s statements and actions, not for their truth. These statements also were not hearsay.