"The primary purpose of the DNA reports was not testimonial”.
How later courts described this case
- "The primary purpose of the DNA reports was not testimonial”.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*745 FLEER, J., Concurring.
I concur in the judgment because People v. Lopez (2012) 55 Cal.4th 569 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 559 , 286 P.3d 469 ] and People v. Dungo (2012) 55 Cal.4th 608 [ 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 527 , 286 P.3d 442 ] require finding the admission of Dr. Reynolds’s testimony did not violate the confrontation clause.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied July 24, 2013, S210914. Werdegar, J., did not participate therein.