BLOOD GROUPS AND TYPES
§ 1. Blood Groups and Types Generally
§ 2. Proof of Paternity
§ 3. Identification in Criminal Cases
§ 3(a). Generally
§ 3(b). The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
§ 4. Chain of Custody
Bibliography
See also: DNA; GENETIC TESTING; HUMAN LEUKOCYTE ANTIGEN TEST; INTOXICATION; PATERNITY
1. Generally
There are many different blood-grouping procedures which may be used to categorize and compare blood samples. The main body of blood tests consists of the red blood cell (RBC) or Landsteiner series of tests. While blood may also be tested using DNA tests and human leukocyte antigen (HLA) tests, it is somewhat inaccurate to refer to these as blood tests, since they may be applied to both blood and tissue. See DNA; HUMAN LEUKOCYTE ANTIGEN TEST.
1(a). Red Blood Cell Antigen Tests
The Red Blood Cell Antigen series of tests includes the ABO, MN and Rh-Hr systems. The ABO system identifies blood into one of four types: A, B, AB and O. The MN system identifies blood as type M, N, or MN. The Rh-Hr system identifies blood as type Rh, rhN, rhO, hrN, or hrO.{footnote}Everett v. Everett, 201 Cal. Rptr. 351, 358-59 (Cal. App. 1984).{/footnote} If these tests are inconclusive, additional testing is sometimes performed using the Kell, Duffy and Kidd systems.{footnote}Mary F. Forrest, The Legal Implications of HLA Testing for Paternity, J. of Family Law 537, 539 (1977-78).{/footnote}
It is possible using these tests to establish conclusively that a given subject is not the father of a particular child, or that two particular blood samples came from different persons. Because millions of persons share the same blood groups and types, it is not possible to prove conclusively that a subject is the father or that two samples came from the same person. On the other hand, if all six of the foregoing tests are performed, it has been estimated that the probability of excluding a man who is not the father ranges from 63 to 72 percent, depending on race.{footnote}Abbott, Joint AMA-ABA Guidelines: Present Status of Serologic Testing in Problems of Disputed Parentage, 10 Fam. L. Q. 247, 256 (1970). {/footnote}
1(b). Electrophoresis
This form of testing identifies proteins and enzymes present in a blood sample. Those proteins and enzymes are determined genetically. It is thus possible to determine nonpaternity through this testing. Electrophoresis is a more precise method of blood typing than traditional red blood cell antigen tests.{footnote}Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla. 1988); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 526 N.E.2d 1270 (Mass. 1988).{/footnote} When combined with red blood cell antigen testing, 89 to 96 percent of those incorrectly allege to be the father will be excluded.{footnote}Margaret Campbell Haynes et al., Child Support Reference Manual V-18 (1989).{/footnote} See also ELECTROPHORESIS.
"Multisystem" electrophoresis involves separating multiple enzymes simultaneously in one sample. It requires less sample material than the conventional single-system methods of electrophoresis.{footnote}Wraxall & Stolorow, The Simultaneous Separation of the Enzymes Glyoxalase I, Esterase D and Phosphoglucomutase, 31 J. of Forensic Sci. 1439, 1439‑1440 (1986). {/footnote}
2. Paternity Cases{footnote}CHECK ALA. CODE @ 26‑12‑5 (1975); CAL. EVID. CODE @ 895 (West 1966); GA. CODE ANN. @ 47‑101 (1981); MD. ANN. CODE art. 16, @ 66G (1981); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. @ 3111.16 (Page 1980); TENN. CODE ANN. @ 36‑228 (1977). {/footnote}[803]
Blood groups are useful as identifiers in paternity cases because (1) a person’s blood group and type can be determined at birth or shortly thereafter; (2) every person’s blood group and type remains constant throughout life; and (3) blood groups and types are inherited in accordance with Gregor Mendl’s laws of inheritance.{footnote}Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 7 (1981)(statute requiring cost of test t be borne by requesting party unconstitutional as applied to indigent defendant). Gregor Mendel’s law of inheritance state:
1. A child cannot have a genetic marker that is absent in both parents.
2. A child must inherit one of a pair of markers from each parent.
3. A child cannot have a pair of identical markers unless both parents have the same markers.
4. A child must have a genetic marker if it is present as an identical pair in one parent.
Steven R. Lake & Mary D. Paulsen, From Here to Paternity ‑ What You Should Know About Blood Tests, Family Advocate, Summer 1985, at 41.
{/footnote} Because certain components of blood may be transmitted to a child only from his or her parents, if a child’s blood contains a particular component that is not found in the mother’s blood, that component must be found in the alleged father’s blood, or that person is not the natural father.{footnote}David Louter, Blood Tests: Genetics and Probability, Nat’l L.J., Sept.
12, 1983, at 28.{/footnote} A subject can also be conclusively excluded as a potential father if the child does not possess a component that any child of the subject would necessarily possess.{footnote}David Louter, Blood Tests: Genetics and Probability, Nat’l L.J., Sept.
12, 1983, at 28.{/footnote}
2(a). Proof of Nonpaternity
The Uniform Parentage Act allows the results of blood tests to be used to prove nonpaternity.{footnote}Uniform Parentage Act § 12 (1973)
CHECK Ala. Code §§ 26-17-1 et seq. (1975); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 7000 et seq. (West); Colo. C.R.S. 19-6-101 et seq.; 13 Del. Code §§ 801 et seq.; Hawaii §§ 584-1 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. ch. 40, & 2501 et seq.; Kan.S.A. 38-1110 et seq.; Minn.S.A. §§ 257.51 et seq.; Mont. C.A. 40-6-101 et seq.; Nev. R.S. 126.011 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 9.17-38 et seq.; N.D.C.C. 14-17-01 et seq.; Ohio R.C. §§ 3111.01 et seq.; R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-8-1 et seq.(1956); Wash. R.C.A. 26.26.010 et seq.; Wyo.S. §§ 14-2-101 et seq. (1977).{/footnote} The Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity{footnote}Codified as Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.51 (1995); 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5104 (1991).{/footnote} is to the same effect.{footnote}The Act provides, in pertinent part:
(C) AUTHORITY FOR TEST. ‑ In any matter subject to this section in which paternity, parentage or identity of a child is a relevant fact, the court, upon its own initiative or upon suggestion made by or on behalf of any person whose blood is involved, may or, upon motion of any party to the action made at a time so as to not delay the proceedings unduly, shall order the mother, child and alleged father to submit to blood tests. If any party refuses to submit to the tests, the court may resolve the question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child against the party or enforce its order if the rights of others and the interests of justice so require.
** *
(F) EFFECT OF TEST RESULTS. ‑ If the court finds that the conclusions of all the experts as disclosed by the evidence based upon the tests are that the alleged father is not the father of the child, the question of paternity, parentage or identity of a child shall be resolved accordingly. If the experts disagree in their findings or conclusions, the question shall be submitted upon all the evidence.{/footnote} Courts generally admit the results of blood tests where offered to prove nonpaternity of a party{footnote}Keener v. State, 347 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1977); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 460 P.2d 32 (Ark. 1972); Jackson v. Jackson, 430 P.2d 289 (Cal. 1967); Franklin v. District Court of Tenth Judicial Dist., 571 P.2d 1072 (___1977); Robertson v. Apuzzo, 365 A.2d 824 (Conn. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 852; Retzer v. Retzer, 161 A.2d 469 (App. D.C. 1960).Bowden v. State, 137 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1962); Isaacson v. Obendorf, 581 P.2d 350 (Idaho 1978); People ex rel. Yarn v. Yarn, 392 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. 1979); Beck v. Beck, 304 N.E.2d 541 (Ind. 1973); State ex rel. Wegman v. Schulz, 417 N.W.2d 228 (Iowa App. 1987); State ex rel. Hausner v. Blackman, 662 P.2d 1183 (Kan. 1983); Simmons v. Simmons, 479 S.W.2d 585 (Ky. 1972); Shaw v. Seward, 689 S.W.2d 37 (Ky. App. 1985); Anding v. Anding, 480 So.2d 507 (La. App. 1985); Jordan v. Mace, 69 A.2d 670 (Me. 1949); Thompson v. Thompson, 404 A.2d 269, app. dismd. 444 U.S. 1062 (1979); Commonwealth v. Leary, 185 N.E.2d 641 (1962); Symonds v. Symonds, 432 N.E.2d 700 (Mass. App. 1982); Sheperd v. Sheperd, 265 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. App. 1978); D.K.L. v. H.P.M., 763 S.W.2d 212 (Mo. App. 1988); State by Dolloff v. Sargent, 118 A.2d 596 (N.H. 1955); Malvasi v. Malvasi, 401 A.2d 279 (N.J. 1979); State ex rel. Human Svcs. Dept. v. Coleman, 723 P.2d 971 (N.M. App. 1986); Cardinal v. Green, 30 App. Div. 711, 290 N.Y.S.2d 858 (N.Y. 1968); Beaudoin v. Tilley, 110 Misc.2d 696, 442 N.Y.S.2d 914 (1981); State v. Camp, 209 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1974); Bunting v. Beacham, 262 S.E.2d 672 (N.C. App. 1980); State v. Unterseher, 255 N.W.2d 882 (N.D. 1977); State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 102 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1944); Garrett v. Garrett, 37 N.E.2d 654 (Ohio App. 1977); State ex rel. Evertson v. Cornett, 391 P.2d 277 (Okla. 1964); Hodge and Hodge, 722 P.2d 1235 (Or. 1986); Commonwealth ex rel. Goldman v. Goldman, 184 A.2d 351 (Pa. 1962); Adam v. Adam, 254 N.W.2d 123 (S.D. 1977); Shelby v. Shelby, 696 S.W.2d 360 (Tenn. 1985); In Interest of S.C.V., 750 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1988); Pomainville v. Bicknell, 109 A.2d 342 (Vt. 1954); State v. Santos, 702 P.2d 1179 (Wash. 1985); State ex rel. Lyons v. De Valk, 177 N.W.2d 106 (Wis. 1970).{/footnote} as well as a non-party.{footnote}Osborne v. Fabatz, 306 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. 1981).{/footnote} Judicial notice has been taken of the reliability of blood tests in excluding the possibility of paternity.{footnote}Commonwealth v. Zammarelli, 17 Pa. D. & C. 229 (1931).{/footnote}
Test results are deemed inadmissible in some states where they are conflicting as to whether the defendant may be excluded as the father.{footnote}Watkins v. Martin, 450 N.E.2d 866 (Ill. App. 1983)(applying statute); Torino v. Cruz, 82 Misc.2d 684, 369 N.Y.S.2d 291 (1975).{/footnote} In California, blood tests cannot be used to rebut a conclusive presumption of legitimacy even though blood tests exclude the husband as a possible father.{footnote}Vincent B. v. Joan R., 126 Cal. App. 3d 619, 179 Cal. Rptr. 9, app. dism’d, 459 U.S. 807 (1981).{/footnote} In other states where the presumption is rebuttable, blood tests excluding the husband as a possible father have been held admissible.{footnote}State by Dolloff v. Sargeant, 118 A.2d 596 (N.H. 1955); Cooper v. Cooper, 608 N.E.2d 1386 (1993); Oliver v. England, 48 Misc.2d 335, 264 N.Y.S.2d 999 (1965); Johnson v. Johnson, 461 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. 1995); State ex rel. Walker v. Clark, 58 N.E.2d 773 (Ohio 1944); In Interest of S.C.V., 750 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1988).{/footnote}
Where a blood test excludes the possiblity that the alleged father of a child is in fact the natural father, in some states there is created a rebuttable presumption that he is not the father.{footnote}People ex rel Brown v. Bloodworth, 155 Ill. App. 3d 901, 508 N.E.2d 1152 (5th Cir. 1987).{/footnote} In other states, the presumption is conclusive.{footnote}Anonymous v. Anonymous, 460 P.2d 32 (Ariz. 1969); Kusior v. Silver, 354 P.2d 657 (Cal. 1960); B. v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County, 86 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 150 Cal. Rptr. 586 (1978); Franklin v. District Court of Tenth Judicial Dist., 571 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1977); P. v. J., 407 A.2d 244 (Del. 1978); Retzer v. Retzer, 161 A.2d 469 (D.C. App. 1960); Jordan v. Mace, 69 A.2d 670 (Me. 1949); Symonds v. Symonds, 432 N.E.2d 700 (Mass. 1982); Shepherd v. Shepherd, 265 N.W.2d 374 (Mich. 1978); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 1 App. Div. 2d 312, 150 N.Y.S.2d 344 (1956); Schleimer on behalf of McCoy v. Swann, 93 Misc. 2d 520, 402 N.Y.S.2d 897 (1978); In re Interest of N___, 570 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1978); State ex rel. Lyons v. De Valk, 177 N.W.2d 106 (Wis. 1970).
Contra Groulx v. Groulx, 103 A.2d 188 (N.H. 1954); Ross v. Marx, 93 A.2d 597 (N.J. 1952); State v. Camp, 209 S.E.2d 754 (1974).{/footnote}
2(b). As Evidence of Possible Paternity{footnote}CHECK for Georgia statute: Miller v. State, 258 SE2d 279 (1972); Mich. Stat. Ann. § 25.496 (1996); Mont. Code Ann. § 40-5-201 (1995){/footnote}[818]
While blood tests by their nature cannot identify a subject conclusively as being the father, they can often yield a degree of likelihood (expressed as a percentage known as a paternity index) that the subject is the father.
The majority of states have held the results of standard blood tests inadmissible where offered for the purpose of showing that the defendant is a potential father.{footnote}Winston v. Robinson, 606 S.W.2d 757 (Ark. 1980); Dodd v. Henkel, 84 Cal. App. 3d 604, 148 Cal. Rptr. 780 (1978); Isaacson v. Obendorf, 581 P.2d 350 (Idaho 1978); Santiago v. Silva, 413 N.E.2d 139 (Ill. App. 1980); State ex rel. Hausner v. Blackman, 662 P.2d 1183 (Kan. 1983); People v. Nichols, 67 N.W.2d 230 (Mich. 1954); Pizana v. Jones, 339 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. App. 1983); State v. Summers, 489 S.W.2d 225 (Mo. App. 1972); Hansen v. Hansen, 402 A.2d 1333 (N.H. 1979); Miller v. Domanski, 97 A.2d 641 (N.J. 1953); B. v. H., 73 App. Div. 2d 645, 422 N.Y.S.2d 742 (1979); Beaudoin v. Tiley, 110 Misc.2d 696, 442 N.Y.S.2d 914 (1981); State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, 102 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1951); Roberts v. Van Kleave, 237 P.2d 892 (Okla. 1951); Commonwealth v. Krutsick, 30 A.2d 325 (Pa. 1943); Commonwealth v. Heydt, 3 Pa. D & C2d 129 (1955); Adam v. Adam, 254 N.W.2d 123 (S.D. 1977); State ex rel. Isham v. Mullally, 112 N.W.2d 701 (Wis. 1961).
Contra Turek v. Hardy, 458 A.2d 562 (Pa. Super. 1983).
CHECK People v. Alzoubi, 479 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ill. Ct. App. 1985) (evidence concerning mathematical probabilities of defendant’s paternity of victim’s child admissible in trial when occurrence of sexual intercourse at issue).{/footnote} Some courts will admit this evidence only where it is coupled with results of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing.{footnote}Balfour v. Balfour, 413 So.2d 1167 (Ala. App. 1982); Pratt on behalf of A. v. B., 112 Misc.2d 487, 448 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1982)(applying statute).
Contra Smith v. Jones, 120 Misc.2d 834, 466 N.Y.S.2d 643 (1983)(blood tests inadmissible to show paternity even where bolstered by HLA testing results).{/footnote}
The Uniform Parentage Act allows the results of blood tests to be used to state the probability that the defendant is the father, where this data is available.{footnote}Uniform Parentage Act § 12 (1973)
CHECK Ala. Code §§ 26-17-1 et seq. (1975); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 7000 et seq. (West); Colo. C.R.S. 19-6-101 et seq.; 13 Del. Code §§ 801 et seq.; Hawaii §§ 584-1 et seq.; Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. ch. 40, & 2501 et seq.; Kan.S.A. 38-1110 et seq.; Minn.S.A. §§ 257.51 et seq.; Rev. Stat. Mo. § 210.817; Mont. Code Ann. 40-6-101 et seq. (1995); Nev. R.S. 126.011 et seq.; N.J.S.A. 9.17-38 et seq.; N.D.C.C. 14-17-01 et seq.; Ohio R.C. §§ 3111.01 et seq.; R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-8-1 et seq.(1956); Wash. R.C.A. 26.26.010 et seq.; Wyo.S. §§ 14-2-101 et seq. (1977).
Accord N.M. Stat. Ann. § 40-11-13; N.Y. CLS Family Ct. Act § 418 (1996); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-7-954 (1996)(includes electrophoresis).{/footnote}
For a list of jurisdictions which have adopted the Uniform Laws, see Am Jur 2d Desk Book, Document 124.
Evidence of matching blood types is admissible, even though the blood type in question may be very common (type O, for example).{footnote}Uniform Act on Blood Tests to Determine Paternity (enacted as Cal. § 890-97; …); Shanks v. State, 45 A.2d 85 (Md. 1945); {/footnote}
3. Criminal Cases
3(a). Generally
It has been held proper to admit evidence that a defendant’s blood group is consistent with that of blood found at the crime scene.{footnote}CHECK Commonwealth v. DiMarzo, 364 Mass. 669, 677 (1974) (no error to admit evidence that bloodstains found in house were consistent with defendant’s blood group).{/footnote}
Blood typing based on electrophoresis has generally been held admissible scientific evidence.{footnote}People v. Morris, 199 Cal. App. 3d 377 (1988); People v. Reilly, 196 Cal. App. 3d 1127 (1987); Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1988); Graham v. State, 168 Ga. App. 23 (1983); People v. Thomas, 137 Ill. 2d 500, 561 N.E.2d 57 (1990)(genetic test using electrophoresis analsysis of blood admissible, provided it is performed properly); State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47 (1981); State v. Rolls, 389 A.2d 824 (Me. 1978); Smith v. State, 62 Md. App. 627 (1985); Robinson v. State, 47 Md. App. 558 (1981); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 526 N.E.2d 1270, 1277 (Mass. 1988); State v. Chavez, 100 N.M. 730 (Ct. App. 1983); People v. Crosby, 116 A.D. 2d 834 (N.Y. 1986); People v. Borcsok, 114 Misc. 2d 810 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982); Plunkett v. State, 719 P.2d 834, 841 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1019 (1986); State v. Adams, 418 N.W. 2d 618 (S.D. 1988); 66 ALR4th 588.
Contra People v. Young, 425 Mich. 470 (1986).
{/footnote} The multisystem method of electrophoresis has also been approved.{footnote}People v. Morris, 199 Cal. App. 3d 377 (1988); State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47 (1981); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 526 N.E.2d 1270, 1277 (Mass. 1988); Plunkett v. State, 719 P.2d 834, 841 (Okla. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1019 (1986); State v. Adams, 418 N.W. 2d 618 (S.D. 1988).{/footnote} One court has noted that the state should preserve the results of the electrophoresis by photographing the gel plates, even though a photograph would be difficult for another expert to work from.{footnote}Commonwealth v. Gomes, 526 N.E.2d 1270, 1281-82 (Mass. 1988) (finding no prejudice in failure to photograph results of blood tests for later examination because laboratory notes produced).{/footnote} See also SPOLIATION.
3(b). Statistical Evidence
The prosecution generally offers statistical evidence demonstrating that the defendant’s blood and blood found at the crime scene share a rare combination of genetic markers. To establish how rare the combination is, a prosecution expert identifies specific genetic markers found in each blood sample. The expert then determines the frequency with which each marker occurs in the population based upon studies of the relevant population. The expert then uses the "product rule" to multiply the frequencies of each separate genetic marker.{footnote}One court illustrated the product rule as follows:
If one had to choose an automobile numbered but not seen and there were 5 hardtops and 5 convertibles, the probability of selecting a convertible would be 1 out of 2. If 5 of the automobiles are blue, the probability of selecting a blue automobile is 1 out of 2, and the probability of selecting a blue convertible is 1 out of 4. If only convertibles are colored blue, the probability of selecting a blue convertible reverts back to 1 out of 2.
People v. Wesley, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643, 657 n.23 (N.Y. Co. Ct. 1988); John McCabe, DNA Fingerprinting: The Failings of Frye, 16 N.Ill.U. L.Rev. 455, 463 n. 41 (1996).{/footnote} The result the frequency with which the combination of genetic markers occurs in the population.
The defense ordinarily will challenge this evidence by raising concerns regarding population substructures and the appropriateness of the database chosen by the prosecution expert.
Courts have generally admitted statistical evidence such as this, holding that any objections to the methodology go to to weight, not the admissibility of this evidence.{footnote}Dumond v. State, 721 S.W.2d 663 (Ark. 1986); People v. Fierro, 821 P.2d 1302, 1318-19 (Cal. 1991); Graham v. State, 308 S.E.2d 413, 413-14 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983) (expert testimony on identification of blood samples through electrophoretic analysis based on population frequency statistics admissible in rape trial); State v. Redman, 481 N.E.2d 1272 (Ill. App. Ct. 1985); State v. Klindt, 389 N.W.2d 670 (Iowa 1978); State v. Washington, 662 P.2d 986 (Kan. 1981) (electrophoresis); Commonwealth v. Gomes, 526 N.E.2d 1270 (Mass. 1988)(electrophoresis); People v. Rolls, 389 A.2d 824 (Me. 1978)(electrophoresis); Plunkett v. State, 719 P.2d 834 (Okla. Ct. App. 1986)(electrophoresis); State v. Adams, 418 N.W.2d 618 (S.D. 1988) (electrophoresis).
CHECK Davis v. State, 476 N.E.2d 127, 136 (Ind. App. 1985); State v. Joon Kyu Kim, 398 N.W. 2d 544, 552‑553 (Minn. 1987){/footnote}
3(c). The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
The privilege against self-incrimination may not be asserted to avoid providing physical evidence such as a blood sample.{footnote}Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); 14 ALR4th 690; 72 ALR3d 325 (admissibility of blood samples taken from unconscious drivers).
Wesley v. State, 521 So. 2d 1283, 1286 (Miss. 1988).
Check Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973)(voluntary consent required).
See also South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983)(refusal to give blood sample admissible).
{/footnote} See also SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST–Criminal Defendants: Physical Evidence.
3(d). Chain of Custody
Before blood test results may be introduced into evidence, the proponent must establish a proper chain of custody of the blood samples.{footnote}Nichols v. McCoy, 235 P.2d 412 (Cal. App. 1951) (blood sample inadmissible where sample taken at mortuary and not segregated from other blood samples at mortuary); Kofford v. Flora, 744 P.2d 1343, 1355 (Utah 1987).{/footnote}
‘4. Reports as Hearsay
Blood test reports as to genetic markers constitute hearsay,{footnote}Henderson v. State, 915 P.2d 6, 12 (Idaho 1996).{/footnote} but may be admitted as hearsay under the business records exception.{footnote}Henderson v. State, 915 P.2d 6, 12 (Idaho 1996).
See also N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4518(c), providing special hearsay exception for reports of blood genetic markers tests); Cynthia H. v. James H., 458 N.Y.S.2d 490, 492 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1983) (applying N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 4518(c) to admit reports).{/footnote} See also BUSINESS RECORDS; LABORATORY REPORTS; MEDICAL RECORDS.
Bibliography
John P. Ludington, Annotation, Admissibility and Weight of Blood-Grouping Tests in Disputed Paternity Cases, 43 A.L.R.4th 579 (1986).
Timothy E. Travers, Annotation, Admissibility, Weight, and Sufficiency of Blood-Grouping Tests in Criminal Cases, 2 A.L.R.4th 500 (1980).
[Immigration] 46 A.L.R. Fed. 176.
Steven R. Lake & Mary D. Paulsen, From Here to Paternity ‑ What You Should Know About Blood Tests, ___ Family Advocate 41 (1985).
David Louter, Paternity: The Final Word: New Blood Tests Are Revolutionizing Family Courts, Nat’l L.J., Sept. 12, 1983, at 27.
Note, The Admissibility of Electrophoretic Methods of Genetic Marker Bloodstain Typing Under the Frye Standard, 11 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 773, 778 (1986)
Jonakait, Will Blood Tell? Genetic Markers in Criminal Cases, 31 Emory L. J. 833 (1982).