denied the right to cross-examine Lohman must fail. O’Connell’s statement that “the test was conducted with the type of equipment and in accordance with the methods approved by the Department of Forensic Science” is not hearsay. It is not “what others have told him, or what he has heard said by others.” Cross, 195 Va. at 74, 77 S.E.2d at 453. It is simply his opinion that he followed the rules. O’Connell’s later admission that he was not familiar with all of the Department’s methods does not change his opinion testimony to hearsay. The extent of O’Connell’s knowledge of the Department’s methods goes only to the weight of his testimony, not its admissibility. As non-hearsay, O’Connell’s testimony did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Davis, 547 U.S. at 823, 126 S.Ct. at 2274 (<HOLDING>). b. O’Connell’s Assertion That the Machine Had
holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay holding that hearsay objection does not preserve a confrontation clause challenge