In Rollins v. State (2005), 161 Md.App. 34, 81, 866 A.2d 926, a medical examiner who did not perform the autopsy testified about the results of the autopsy. The trial judge redacted those portions of the report that constituted opinions or conclusions, including reference to the cause and manner of death. On appeal, the court found that the defendant's right to confrontation was not violated because the remaining findings in the autopsy report did not constitute testimonial evidence, as contemplated by Crawford v. Washington (2004). Id. In so holding, the Rollins court stated as follows: "The findings in an autopsy report of the physical condition of a decedent, which are routine, descriptive and not analytical, which are objectively ascertained and generally reliable and enjoy a generic indicium of reliability, may be received into evidence without the testimony of the examiner. Where, however, contested conclusions or opinions in an autopsy report are central to the determination of corpus delecti or criminal agency and are offered into evidence, they serve the same function as testimony and trigger the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation." Id.