that appellant had acted with particular cruelty. The district court thereafter sentenced appellant to a double upward durational departure of 300 months. ISSUES 1. Did the district court commit reversible error by allowing Dr. Roe to testify regarding the laboratory test results and to render an opinion based in part on those results because admission of that evidence violated appellant’s right to confront witnesses? 2. Did the district court err or abuse its discretion with respect to the other issues raised by appellant? ANALYSIS I. “[E]videntiary rulings — including the admission of chemical or scientific test reports — are within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Caulfield, 722 N.W.2d 804, 308 (Minn.2006) (<HOLDING>). “But whether the admission of evidence
holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding that bureau of criminal apprehension bca laboratory report identifying a substance as cocaine was testimonial and implicated defendants right to confrontation holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding forensic laboratory experts statement that substance was cocaine is testimonial for sixth amendment confrontation clause purposes holding that state bureau of criminal apprehension laboratory report offered at trial to prove that substance seized from defendant was cocaine was clearly prepared for litigation and was testimonial