Opinion ID: 1215480
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of Testimony Regarding the Hemostick

Text: (9) (See fn. 18.), (10) Defendant claims that the court erred in admitting, over objection, [18] testimony by Inspector Ihle, a police expert from the San Francisco Crime Laboratory, that as part of his investigation of the murder scene he had tested the stained thumbprint found on the back of the chair with a hemostick. [19] The hemostick, according to Ihle, was used to perform a presumptive test for blood, changing color in the presence of blood. The test of the thumbprint on the chair resulted in a color change. Ihle's testimony made clear that although the hemostick indicated the presence of blood, the test could not show whether or not the substance was human blood, or determine blood type. Ihle stated that he had used the test in crime laboratory work for three years and found it reliable after performing the test on substances with an appearance similar to blood, and obtaining negative results. He also indicated that he had previously testified at criminal trials as to the results of hemostick tests, but did not know why blood caused the stick to change color, and had not read any scientific literature on the subject. Following Ihle's testimony, Dr. Blake, the forensic serologist who was called to testify on other matters at trial, stated that he was aware of the hemostick test, and explained that the hemoglobin in blood caused the stick to change color. He also stated that the test was a presumptive test for blood. [20] Defendant argues that the admission of the testimony regarding the hemostick was error because the prosecutor failed to show that the test was reliable. [21] As a general rule, evidence of a scientific test should not be admitted unless the scientific basis for the test and its reliability are generally recognized by competent authorities. ( People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30 [130 Cal. Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240].) Ihle's testimony was insufficient to permit the introduction of the hemostick evidence in this case. Ihle was not an expert on blood or blood tests, nor did he otherwise have a scientific basis on which to testify as to the reliability of the test. No alternative or supplemental basis for admission of the test was presented, such as prior appellate court decisions allowing use of such a test or extensive scientific literature supporting the test. ( People v. Kelly, supra, 17 Cal.3d at pp. 32, 35.) It should be noted that presumptive tests for blood are generally accepted by California courts, and have been used by criminologists and admitted into evidence in this state for over 40 years. (See, e.g., People v. Alcalde (1944) 24 Cal.2d 177, 182 [148 P.2d 627]; see also People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal.3d 505, 526-528 [224 Cal. Rptr. 112, 714 P.2d 1251]; People v. Talbot (1966) 64 Cal.2d 691, 708 [51 Cal. Rptr. 417, 414 P.2d 633].) However, because we have no information as to the type of presumptive test the hemostick was, we cannot simply assume it is one of the generally accepted presumptive tests for blood. The hemostick test should not, therefore, have been admitted. Despite the erroneous admission of the hemostick testimony, however, we conclude the error was harmless on the facts of this case. The wrongly admitted evidence did not point to defendant as the perpetrator of the murder, nor was it the most incriminating evidence in the case. The record shows that Ihle, as well as both the prosecution and defense counsel, noted the limitations of Ihle's testimony. Ihle testified that the test showed the presence of blood, but that it could not and did not indicate whether it was human blood. This point was reemphasized by defense counsel on cross-examination. In addition, the other evidence against defendant was quite substantial. Defendant's prints were found in the bungalow, he lied about his presence there when he first discussed the matter with police, and his genetic characteristics placed him within a class consisting of only 8 percent of the population that could have committed the rape. His alibi defense was significantly undermined by the other evidence presented by the prosecutor. We conclude that it is not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have occurred but for the error. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 [299 P.2d 243].)