trainee Applebee utilized to obtain DNA profiles from specimens in Zora’s rape kit was performed under his observation and the findings reported as a result of the analysis were his own. See State v. Hough, 202 N.C. App. 674, 682-83, 690 S.E.2d 285, 291 (2010) (where the analyst who testified asserted his or her own expert opinion, even though she did not conduct the original testing, there was no violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation as considered under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, _, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 187 (2004), and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, _U.S. _, _, 174 L. Ed. 2d 314, 331 (2009). (citing State v. Watts, 172 N.C. App. 58, 67, 616 S.E.2d 290, 297 (2005), modified on other grounds after remand, 185 N.C. App. 539, 648 S.E.2d 862 (2007) (<HOLDING>), reviewed in Watts v. Thomas, 2009 WL 3199891,
holding that there was no violation of defendants confrontation rights where minor victim testified at trial and was available for recall after admission of her hearsay statements holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff testified that statement written by defendant was false and defendant testified that statement was verbatim and accurate because although there was certainly not overwhelming evidence of falsification a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony and reject defendants holding that refusal to recruit counsel did not prejudice plaintiff who testified on his own behalf crossexamined witnesses and introduced exhibits holding that the defendants right to confrontation under crawford was not violated where the analyst who testified concerning dna evidence testified to his own opinion based on tests run by another analyst