Does the Attorney General have any authority to challenge statements that were challenged as hearsay?

The Attorney General counters this by asserting that the challenged statements were not hearsay in the first place because they qualified as acts or declarations of the conspiracy itself. (People v. Herrera (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 46, 64 ["The acts and declarations constituting the conspiracy agreement itself are admissible as 'part of a transaction' which is in issue and are, therefore, outside the hearsay rule"].) The Attorney General argues that if the statements were hearsay, they were admissible under either the co-conspirator exception or the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule.