What is the effect of admitting DNA test results as an exhibit?

Finally, we reject appellant's argument that the trial court erred by admitting the DNA test results under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (See Evid. Code, 1271.) First, the exception does not apply unless the proponent seeks to admit a business record into evidence. (Ibid.) Here, the prosecution did not mark the case file as an exhibit or have it admitted into evidence. Second, even if the records in the file are considered hearsay, their use by Rodriguez did not violate the confrontation clause. "'Not all erroneous admissions of hearsay violate the confrontation clause. . . . Only the admission of testimonial hearsay statements violates the confrontation clause. . . .' [Citations.]" (People v. Loy (2011) 52 Cal.4th 46, 66.) As previously explained, the records are not testimonial. (See Lopez, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 582; Holmes, supra, 212 Cal.App.4th at pp. 433-434.)

The judgment is affirmed.