OPINION BY MUNDY, J.:

The Commonwealth appeals from the order entered January 13, 2011 granting the post-sentence motion filed by Appellee, George William Yohe, II, and awarding him a new trial. Because we conclude the trial court erred in determining Appellee was entitled to a new trial on the basis his constitutional right of confrontation was violated, we reverse.

On August 19, 2009, Officer Scott George of the Northeast Regional Police Department performed a traffic stop of Appellee's vehicle for equipment violations. Upon observation of Appellee, Officer George suspected he had been driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and performed field sobriety tests. Appellee was then arrested and transported to Memorial Hospital where a phlebotomist drew a blood sample for chemical analysis. Officer George filed a criminal complaint charging Appellee with two counts of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1) and(b).1

The case proceeded to a bench trial on August 30, 2010. At trial, the Commonwealth presented the testimony of Officer George and Dr. Lee Blum, a toxicologist and assistant laboratory director at National Medical Services (NMS Labs) where Appellee's blood sample was analyzed. Appellee objected to Dr. Blum's testimony regarding the report of the analysis of Appellee's blood alcohol level and later to the admission of that toxicology report on the grounds it violated his right to confrontation guaranteed under the 6th amendment of the U.S. Constitution. N.T., 8/30/10, at 47, 62. The trial court overruled Appellee's objections. Id. at 49, 62. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court found Appellee guilty of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(b) and not guilty of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(a)(1). Id. at 96.

On October 25, 2010, the trial court sentenced Appellee to a term of incarceration of 48 hours to six months and a fine of $500.00. Certified Record (C.R.) at 18, 19. On the same day, Appellee filed a post-sentence motion reasserting his objection to the admission of Dr. Blum's testimony and the toxicology report on constitutional right-of-confrontation grounds. C.R. at 20. On January 13, 2011, the trial court entered an order, together with an opinion in support, granting Appellee's post-trial motion and awarding a new trial. C.R. at 25. On January 26, 2011, the Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration. C.R. at 26. On January 28, 2011, Appellee filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the judgment of sentence be vacated rather than a new trial ordered. The trial court did not act on the motions for reconsideration. Id. On February 11, 2011, the Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal.2 C.R. at 27. On February 18, 2011, the trial court directed the Commonwealth to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). C.R. at 28. The Commonwealth timely complied on March 9, 2011. C.R. at 30. On May 6, 2011, the trial court filed an opinion in support of its January 13, 2011 order, which both incorporated by reference and amplified its January 13, 2011 opinion, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). C.R. at 33.

On appeal, the Commonwealth raises one general question with four sub-issues for our review.

Commonwealth's Brief at 4-5.

The Commonwealth's first two sub-issues are interrelated so we shall address them together. At the heart of the Commonwealth's position is its contention that Dr. Blum was an appropriate witness to satisfy Appellee's right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that the trial court erred as a matter of law in determining otherwise. Commonwealth's Brief at 10. "Whether Appellant was denied [his] right to confront a witness under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment is a question of law for which our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Commonwealth v. Dyarman, 33 A.3d 104, 106 (Pa.Super.2011), citing Commonwealth v. Atkinson, 987 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa.Super.2009).

The Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to both federal and state3 prosecutions and provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him...." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Pennsylvania Constitution likewise provides that, "[i]n all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right ... to meet the witnesses face to face." Pa. Const. art. I, § 9.4

Commonwealth v. Holton, 906 A.2d 1246, 1252-1253 (Pa.Super.2006) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 697, 918 A.2d 743 (2007).

In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits the use of testimonial hearsay obtained by police officers against a criminal defendant, even if such hearsay is reliable, unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the unavailable declarant. Id. at 54, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Later, in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 129 S.Ct. 2527, 174 L.Ed.2d 314 (2009), the United States Supreme Court addressed the "class of testimonial statements covered by the Confrontation Clause" delineated in Crawford. Id. at 2531. Such testimonial statements included "extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits [. . .] that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial." Id., quoting Crawford, supra at 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354

In Melendez-Diaz, the defendant objected to the admission of certificates of analysis, describing results of forensic testing that determined certain seized substances to be cocaine. Id. Melendez-Diaz maintained he had a constitutional right to confront the analysts, who should have been required to testify in person. Id. The Supreme Court determined that the certificates of analysis were affidavits made under circumstances leading a reasonable person to believe they would be used at trial. Id. at 2532. Accordingly, the affidavits were recognized as testimonial statements and the analysts who prepared the certificates were recognized as witnesses for the purposes of the Sixth Amendment, who the defendant had a right to confront. Id. Because that right was not afforded, the certificates were held to be inadmissible. Id. In Melendez-Diaz the prosecution offered no witnesses in support of the proffered certificates.

We turn now to examine two subsequent cases that address the issue of who is an appropriate witness to testify about a forensic report that qualifies as a testimonial statement under the Confrontation Clause. In Commonwealth v. Barton-Martin, 5 A.3d 363 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 30 A.3d 486 (Pa.2011), the defendant objected to the admission of a forensic blood alcohol test result without the testimony of the laboratory technician who performed the test and prepared the lab report. Id. at 365. At trial, the Commonwealth presented testimony from a witness who was the laboratory administrative director and custodian of records for the Hospital where the analysis was performed. Id. at 366. The witness testified as to lab procedures but admitted that "she was not the technologist who analyzed [the defendant's] blood." Id. The trial court admitted the report as a business record. Id. at 368.

On appeal, the Barton-Martin Court concluded the blood-alcohol test was "the very type of ex parte out-of-court report ruled inadmissible (without the opportunity for confrontation) in Melendez-Diaz." Id. Accordingly, this Court held as follows.

Id. at 369. The Barton-Martin Court noted that a mere custodian of records, otherwise unconnected to the performance of the analysis of the blood sample at issue, does not satisfy the confrontation clause. Id. at 369 n. 5. It is the "analyst's statements" in the report that constitute the "testimonial statement" triggering the right of confrontation. Id. at 368, quoting Melendez-Diaz, supra at 2540; cf. Dyarman, supra (holding calibration logs, establishing chain of custody and accuracy of equipment, not used to establish an element of a crime or for particular prosecution are not testimonial statements requiring confrontation).

In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011), the United States Supreme Court addressed a similar scenario to that presented in Barton-Martin.5 In Bullcoming, the defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated. Id. at 2709. At trial, a forensic laboratory report of the defendant's blood-alcohol level, as analyzed and prepared by the New Mexico Department of Health, Scientific Laboratory Division (SLD), was offered into evidence. Id. at 2711-2712. The report was completed, signed and certified by an analyst who was not called to testify. Id. Instead, another analyst from SLD testified as to the procedures and equipment used but admitted he had no involvement with the specific sample at issue. Id. at 2712. The Supreme Court recognized "[a]n analyst's certification prepared in connection with a criminal investigation or prosecution . . . is `testimonial,' and therefore within the compass of the Confrontation Clause." Id. at 2713-2714. The Bullcoming Court held as follows.

Id. at 2713. Further, the Supreme Court reasoned, "surrogate testimony of the kind [the testifying witness] was equipped to give could not convey what [the certifying analyst] knew or observed about the events his certification concerned, i.e., the particular test and testing process he employed. Nor could such surrogate testimony expose any lapses or lies on the certifying analyst's part." Id. at 2715. "The comparative reliability of an analyst's testimonial report does not dispense with the Clause. The analysts who write reports introduced as evidence must be made available for confrontation even if they have the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa." Id. at 2709. "The ... analyst who must testify is the person who signed the certificate." Id. at 2716, quoting Melendez-Diaz, supra at 2545 (KENNEDY, J., dissenting).

With this authority in mind, we turn to the circumstances of the instant case. As noted above, Appellee's blood sample was sent to NMS labs for analysis. Dr. Blum testified that in his role as a forensic toxicologist at NMS Labs he performs case assignments, case evaluations, reviews of analytic testing, writing of reports, and court testimony. N.T., 8/30/11, at 39. Specifically regarding Appellee's blood sample, Dr. Blum testified as follows.

N.T., 8/30/11, at 41-42. Dr. Blum went on to testify he performed this review in the instant case and electronically signed the report. Id. at 51. He noted that the Lab performed two headspace gas chromatography tests and one enzymatic assay on Appellee's blood sample. Id. at 49-50. Dr. Blum explained the purpose for this procedure in the following exchange.

Id. at 46-47.

On cross-examination, Dr. Blum acknowledged that he did not personally handle or observe the testing performed.

Id. at 57-58.

In view of this testimony, Appellee argued, in his motion for new trial, that the blood-alcohol analysis report was a testimonial statement and that Dr. Blum's testimony could not satisfy his right to confrontation relative to that report because Dr. Blum had not personally conducted the testing. See C.R. at 20. We are therefore presented with factual circumstances distinct from those presented in Barton-Martin and Bullcoming and must determine whether the Confrontation Clause is satisfied by the testimony of a witness who certifies blood-alcohol test results and signs the report of those results but did not observe, prepare or conduct the actual testing procedures. The trial court, after reviewing the relevant precedents, formulated the question before it as follows. "The dilemma then becomes whether the Supreme Court literally meant that the analysts who performed the tests must testify as to the results or whether [i]t meant that the results could not be admitted as evidence without some accompanying testimony."6 Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/11, at 4. The trial court ultimately concluded Appellee was correct for the following reasons.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/6/11, at 3-4. "Therefore, the [trial c]ourt maintains that, despite Dr. Blum's testimony regarding the reliability of the testing procedures employed by the laboratory, [Appellee] is still entitled to confront the witness against him, namely the analyst who performed the blood test." Id. at 6. Accordingly, the trial court held "that the evidence of the lab report and test results that were offered at trial were improperly admitted. The improper admission violated [Appellee's] rights under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and, as such, is grounds for a new trial." Id. at 4-5.

The Commonwealth argues the trial court erred in so holding.

Commonwealth's Brief at 10. We agree.

Instantly, it is clear that Dr. Blum did not handle Appellee's blood sample, prepare portions for testing, place the prepared portions in the testing machines, or retrieve the portions after testing. N.T., 8/30/11, at 57-58. However, it is equally clear that Dr. Blum did review the entire file, compare the results of the three independent test printouts on the three aliquots7, certify the accuracy of the results, and sign the report. Id. at 41-42, 51. Accordingly, Dr. Blum is the analyst who prepared the certificate in anticipation for use at Appellee's trial. We concede that Dr. Blum is in a similar position as the testifying witnesses in Barton-Martin and Bullcoming in that he did not personally handle the defendant's blood sample, prepare the aliquots, or physically place the aliquots in the testing apparatuses. However, unlike the testifying witnesses in Barton-Martin and Bullcoming, Dr. Blum did certify the results of the testing and author the report sought to be admitted as evidence against Appellee. We conclude this distinction is dispositive of the issue presented.

As declared in Bullcoming, it is the certification and the written report that constitute the "testimonial statement" triggering the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Bullcoming, supra at 2713-2715. Appellee is not limited in his cross-examination of Dr. Blum as suggested by the trial court simply because there may be questions he cannot answer due to the fact he did not perform a specific task in the course of processing Appellee's blood sample. What is relevant to Appellee's right of confrontation is the basis for the findings in the report and the certification of those results. Dr. Blum, as the certifying analyst and signatory to the report, is the person who can respond to questions about the reasons for his certification and the bases for the factual assertions in the report. The fact that NMS Labs chose not to have the individual who physically performed the testing certify the results and author the report may be an issue relevant to the weight of the certification, but it is not a confrontation issue. This is true so long as Dr. Blum's certification is based on a true analysis and not merely a parroting of a prior analysis supplied by another individual. See id. at 2713. Here Dr. Blum reviewed the raw data from the analysis machines, compared the three BAC results, and verified the correctness of the procedures as logged by the technicians. Based on his analysis of these materials, Dr. Blum certified the results as reflected in the report he signed.

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it determined that the blood-alcohol report of the blood sample taken from Appellee was inadmissible on the ground that Appellee was not afforded his right to confront the source of the testimonial statement through the testimony and cross-examination of Dr. Blum.8 Accordingly, we reverse the order of January 13, 2011 and reinstate the October 25, 2010 judgment of sentence.

Order reversed. Judgment of sentence reinstated. Jurisdiction relinquished.