1, section 16, of the Florida Constitution guarantee criminal defendants the right to confront their accusers in a criminal trial. The primary interest secured by the confrontation clause is the defendant’s right of cross-examination. See Donaldson v. State, 722 So.2d 177, 186 (Fla.1998) (citing Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965)). I question whether this right is satisfied, at least under our state constitution, when the only evidence submitted by the state to establish the nature of a controlled substance in a drug case is information contained in a laboratory report prepared by a state employee at a police crime lab. But see United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069, 109 S.Ct. 2072, 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Cf. United States v. Garnett, 122 F.3d 1016
holding that it did not violate the confrontation clause of the united states constitution to convict defendant for conspiracy to distribute controlled substance based upon a lab report admitted under the federal business records exception rule because this exception was firmly rooted holding that the exception is not firmly rooted holding codefendants confession incriminating defendant was not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule under roberts standard holding that statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception do not violate the confrontation clause holding that rule 8034 hearsay exception is firmly rooted for sixth amendment purposes