Opinion ID: 1839626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the lower court erred in admitting into evidence the hospital record of blood test results.

Text: Appellee introduced in evidence, over appellant's objection, a blood test report of tests conducted on appellant, appellee, and the child, Tonya Fletcher. No expert testimony from the physician performing the tests was introduced to guide the report of the blood tests into evidence, as provided by Mississippi Code Annotated § 93-9-23 (1972), as amended: The tests shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of blood types who shall be appointed by the court. The experts shall be called by the court as witnesses to testify to their findings and shall be subject to cross-examination by the parties. Any party or person at whose suggestion the tests have been ordered may demand that other experts, qualified as examiners of blood types, perform independent tests under order of court, the results of which may be offered in evidence. The number and qualifications of such experts shall be determined by the court. Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23 (1972). In Davis v. Washington, 453 So.2d 712 (Miss. 1984), the Court held that where blood test reports are admitted into evidence in the absence of the doctor expert who conducted the tests, this deprives the defendant of his right to cross-examination and is in direct contravention of § 93-9-23. Davis held that blood test reports in that case were not properly authenticated and constituted inadmissible hearsay under the facts. The lower court was of the opinion that the blood tests were required to be admitted in evidence, but, since the testing doctor was not available to testify, the court sustained the objection of appellant to its use and consideration by the court. Finding itself in a dilemma, the lower court in its opinion emphasized that: The court does not consider the results of the blood test that are on file in this cause in arriving at its opinion that the defendant is the father of the child Tonya Reshea Fletcher, born to the plaintiff on February 27, 1984; but, rather on the corroborated testimony of the plaintiff and on the uncorroborated testimony of the defendant. We think that under the facts and circumstances of this case, Assignment I should be, and is, rejected.