¶2I fully concur. I write only to dispel any notion that we should grant plain error review on the Confrontation Clause issue based on the recent March case,1 or that our result would be different if we did. In March, our supreme court held a notarized laboratory test report, specifically created at law enforcement’s request for prosecution purposes and offered in lieu of the analyst’s live testimony, was a “core” testimonial statement subject to Confrontation Clause requirements.
¶3These pill packages are significantly different from the report in March. Several courts have allowed similar packaging to be admitted in meth precursor prosecutions,2 and one of those also considered a Confrontation Clause challenge. “It seems clear to us that the author of the label on the non-prescription, over-the-counter medication at issue here, was not a ‘witness against the accused.’ Thus, the statements on the labels, though hearsay, would nevertheless fall within Crawford’s3 discussion of non-testimonial hearsay.” Burchfield v. State, 892 So.2d 191, 202 (Miss.2004). As such, the non-testimonial hearsay was exempt from Confrontation *457Clause challenge. Id.The same reasoning applies here.
