custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially; (2) extrajudicial statements contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions; (3) statements that were made under cireumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial. Pendergrass v. State, 913 N.E.2d 703, 706 (Ind.2009) (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52, 124 S.Ct. 1354), cert. denied 130 S.Ct. 3409, 177 L.Ed.2d 3283, 2010 WL 197668 (June 14, 2010); see also Melen-des-Diaz v. Massachusetts, - U.S. --, , 129 S.Ct. 2527, 2539-40, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009) (<HOLDING>). The booking information printout introduced
holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances holding inculpatory forensic lab certificates testimonial but noting that blusiness and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation  becausehaving been created for the administration of an entitys affairs and not for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact at trialthey are not testimonial holding forensic laboratory experts statement that substance was cocaine is testimonial for sixth amendment confrontation clause purposes holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay