Case Name: PEOPLE v. ALLEN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1981-01-14
Citations: 104 Mich. App. 48
Docket Number: Docket No. 50256
Parties: PEOPLE v ALLEN
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and Beasley and G. R. Deneweth, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 104
Pages: 48–52

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v ALLEN
Docket No. 50256.
Submitted June 9, 1980, at Lansing.
Decided January 14, 1981.
Leave to appeal denied, 410 Mich 906.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Saginaw Circuit Court, Eugene Snow Huff, J., granting a motion to exclude the results of a blood test from admission into evidence in a felony-murder trial. David W. Allen is charged with first-degree felony murder in connection with the armed robbery-burglary of the victim. A convicted accomplice testified that defendant stabbed the victim in the back and then pushed the knife farther into the victim with the heel of his shoe and that blood gushed onto the heel of defendant’s shoe. It is the results of blood tests run on this dried blood that is at issue. The blood tests show that the blood is of the same type as the victim’s blood but not that of the defendant or his accomplice. The people appeal from the granting of the motion to exclude this evidence. Held:
The evidence is relevant under the rules of evidence because it would tend to obviate the possibility of perjurious testimony and would corroborate the testimony of the accomplice as to the method by which the homicide was perpetrated and by whom. The motion to exclude should have been denied.
Reversed and remanded.
T. M. Burns, P.J., concurred but wrote separately to reconcile a seeming conflict between earlier holdings regarding the admissibility of blood test evidence. He would hold that, although blood type evidence should not be admissible per se in a criminal prosecution, such evidence should be admissible where, as here, its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 2] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 370.
30 Am Jur 2d, Evidence § 1104.
Admissibility, weight, and sufficiency of bloodgrouping tests in criminal cases. 2 ALR4th 500.
Opinion of the Court
1. Evidence — Criminal Law — Blood Test Results — Exclusion of Evidence.
It is error for a trial court to exclude blood test results from evidence in a felony-murder prosecution where the evidence tends to obviate the possibility of perjurious testimony and would corroborate testimony as to the method by which the homicide was perpetrated and by whom.
Concurrence by T. M. Burns, P.J.
2. Evidence — Criminal Law — Blood Type Evidence — Admissibility of Evidence.
Blood type evidence, although not per se always admissible in a criminal prosecution, is admissible where its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Robert L. Kaczmarek, Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick M. Meter, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
George C. Bush, for defendant on appeal.
Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and Beasley and G. R. Deneweth, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Defendant is charged with first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. A factual synopsis discloses that defendant allegedly perpetrated the homicide during an armed robbery-burglary.
Prior to commencement of trial, defendant moved to have the results of certain chemical tests excluded from trial. The motion was granted, whereupon the prosecutor brought the present interlocutory appeal. The prosecutor asserts that the following evidence should be available at trial.
During the episode, the victim, an elderly woman, was stabbed in the back with a knife. She then fell to the floor, face down, with the knife handle protruding from her back. The defendant then attempted to push the knife deeper into the victim's body with the heel of his shoe. At this point, blood gushed from the victim onto the heel of the defendant's shoe. The above testimony will come from defendant's accomplice who stands convicted in this episode following a separate trial.
Following defendant's arrest, blood-grouping tests were run on the dried blood on defendant's shoe. These tests showed that the dried blood was type A. It is known that neither defendant nor his accomplice has type A blood. It is known that the victim's blood was type A.
In granting the defendant's motion, the trial court relied on People v Sturdivant, 91 Mich App 128; 283 NW2d 669 (1979), and the authorities cited therein. One of the issues discussed in Sturdivant, i.e., the admissibility of the results of blood grouping tests in criminal prosecutions, is not a novel one to this jurisdiction. Some conflict is noted in the case law. See People v Spencer, 93 Mich App 605; 286 NW2d 879 (1979). We need not attempt to reconcile these cases in this matter, however.
In the case at bar, the purpose of the proffered evidence is twofold. It is first offered to prove that the blood did not come from either of the perpetrators. It is also offered to corroborate the accomplice's testimony as to the facts surrounding the homicide.
This Court finds that the evidence is relevant under the definition of that term in MRE 401. The evidence would tend to obviate the possibility of perjurious testimony in the first instance and, in the second instance, would certainly corroborate the accomplice's testimony as to the method by which the homicide was perpetrated and by whom. As such, the motion to exclude the evidence should have been denied.
Reversed and remanded for trial. We retain no jurisdiction.