Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FWV034195, Raymond L. Haight, III, Judge.
Lewis A. Wenzell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Andrew Mestman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RYLAARSDAM, J.
A jury found defendant Samuel Benitez guilty of resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 69), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148). The court placed him on three years’ probation plus 180 days in custody to be served on weekends.
James Vaughn, the acting supervisor of the county’s crime laboratory, testified based on notes made by another criminalist that the substance in defendant’s possession was 0.02 grams of methamphetamine. Defendant objected to this testimony as hearsay and as violating his right to confrontation. The appeal raises a single issue: was defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation denied by permitting Vaughn to testify based on another’s analysis of the substance? Defendant cites Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, 125 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 in support of this contention.
Defendant acknowledges in his brief that the California Supreme Court held in People v. Geier (2007) 41 Cal.4th 555, 605 that reports of testing results are not testimonial and therefore the admission of such evidence is not prohibited by Crawford v. Washington. But he notes that the issue is presently before the United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, cert. granted March 17, 2008 ___ U.S. ___ 128 S.Ct. 1647, 170 L.Ed.2d 352.
Unless we are otherwise directed by the United States Supreme Court, we are bound to follow the precedent established by our own Supreme Court. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) We therefore affirm the judgment herein.
WE CONCUR: SILLS, P. J., O’LEARY, J.