DNA evidence did not violate defendant’s confrontation right because it was not testimonial. Barba was convicted of first degree murder. DNA testing connected Barba to a sweatshirt found at the scene of the murder; the sweatshirt also contained the victim’s blood. In this fourth appeal after the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded its prior opinions, the Court of Appeal reconsidered its decision in Barba III in light of the decision in Williams v. Illinois (2012) 132 S.Ct. 222. Held: Affirmed. The confrontation clause entitles a criminal defendant to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Thus, testimonial statements made outside of court are inadmissible. The DNA reports were not testimonial because they lacked the required solemnity and formality. Further, the reports were not testimony due to practical considerations and because the primary purpose of the reports was not to accuse a targeted suspect.