I dissent to the majority's resolution of points of error 16 and 16A.

The exhibits at issue in these points of error are business records. The Supreme Court specified in Crawford v. Washington that business records are not testimonial hearsay. ⁽¹⁾ Many other courts have acknowledged this. ⁽²⁾ As a result, Ohio v. Roberts ⁽³⁾ controls. ⁽⁴⁾ And because these exhibits fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, they do not violate the Confrontation Clause.

DATE DELIVERED: June 29, 2005

PUBLISH

1. 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1367 (2004).

2. See, e.g., Rios v. Lansing, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24843 *13 (10^th Cir. 2004); United States v. Guitierrez-Gonzales, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21038 **5-6 (5^th Cir. 2004); United States v. Lee, 374 F.3d 637, 644 (8^th Cir. 2004); Johnson v. Renico, 314 F. Supp. 700, 707 (E.D. Mich. 2004); United States v. Saner, 313 F. Supp. 896, 900 n.1 (S.D. Ind. 2004); Perkins v. State, 2004 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 87 *18-19 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); People v. Cervantes, 12 Cal. Rptr.. 3d 774, 782 n.5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004); People v. Schrek, 2004 Colo. App. LEXIS 1712 *34 (Colo. App. 2004); State v. Rivera, 844 A.2d 191, 202 n.13 (Conn. 2004); People v. Capellan, 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2656 **4 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2004); People v. Cortes, 781 N.Y.S. 2d 401, 403 (N.Y. 2004); State v. Blackstock, 598 S.E.2d 412, 420 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004); State v. McKinney, 2004 Ohio App. LEXIS 5033 **34 (Ohio App. 2004); State v. Mack, 2004 Ore. LEXIS 792 *9 n.5 (Ore. 2004); Commonwealth v. Eichele, 2004 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 39 **11 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004); Barela v. State, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 8802 *17 (Tex. App. - El Paso 2004); Riner v. Commonwealth, 601 S.E.2d 555, 570 (Va. 2004); State v. Manuel, 685 N.W.2d 525, 532 n.9 (Wisc. App. 2004).

3. 448 U.S. 56 (1980).

4. Crawford, 124 S. Ct. at 1373.