In Rollins v. State, 392 Md. 455, 897 A.2d 821 (2006) the Court of Appeals squarely addressed the issue of admissibility of reports. It did so in the context of a claim that an autopsy report was not admissible because it was prepared in the course of an investigation of a criminal matter and, therefore, inadmissible when the preparer of the report was not available for cross-examination. There, the Court held that regardless of whether the preparer of the autopsy report testified at trial, the report itself was admissible as a business record. Id. at 483 (citing Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. Art., 5-311(d)(2006 Rep. Vol.) and Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art., 10-101(b)(2002)). In doing so, the Court, in Rollins, rejected the assertion that the autopsy report was inadmissible because it was prepared in anticipation of use at a trial and, therefore, contained "testimonial" statements. To that end, the Court observed that "the autopsy report, while it might eventually be used in a criminal trial, was not created for that express purpose," and the information contained therein "was statutorily required." Id. at 485. Consequently, the Court distinguished the admissibility of the autopsy report from the hearsay statements of the victims in State v. Snowden, 385 Md. 64, 867 A.2d 314 (2005), which were "elicited with the purpose of being introduced at a criminal trial." 392 Md. at 471. In Rollins, the Court focused on a narrow issue, viz.: whether, in light of Crawford and subsequent Supreme Court cases dealing with the confrontation clause, an autopsy report was admissible even though the out-of-court declarant the preparer of the report was unavailable to testify. Rollins, 392 Md. 483, 486-87 (2006). The Rollins Court concluded that an autopsy report "is not per se testimonial"; instead, before being admitted the Court must look at the report and determine what parts are "testimonial" and what parts are non-testimonial. Id. At 486-87. The testimonial part of an autopsy report must be excluded, unless the defendant has the ability to cross-examine the preparer. Id.