[the detective’s] interview of [the victim] at the hospital tip the scales in favor of the interview’s being structured police questioning. Id. at 24, 619 S.E.2d at 845. We cannot discern a meaningful distinction between Detective Duft’s request in this case for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg crime laboratory to test the substances he obtained from Defendant for the presence of cocaine and the detective’s request in Lewis for the victim to respond to a photographic lineup and identify the defendant. The sole purpose of Detective Duft’s request was to obtain evidence to support the charges at trial, and a reasonable lab technician would expect that his or her conclusions would be used at the subsequent trial. See People v. Lonsby, 2005 Mich. App. LEXIS 2533 (No. 250559) (13 Oct. 2005) (<HOLDING>); People v. Rogers, 8 A.D.3d 888, 891, 780
holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness holding a nontestifying serologists notes and lab report constitute testimonial hearsay and their introduction through another witness violated the confrontation clause holding that lab reports are accusatory and subject to confrontation clause holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements