Opinion ID: 2398763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The blood sample

Text: The State called an expert witness, an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to testify concerning results of tests he performed on pants and underpants worn by the victim on the night of the offense. He testified on direct examination that his analysis revealed the presence on both garments of semen containing spermatozoa. Mills' attorney asked him on cross-examination whether he was able to tell anything else about the semen, other than it contained spermatozoa. The witness replied in the affirmative. He was then asked [w]hat else [he] could ... tell. The reply included the information that the expert determined in the semen stain the presence of A blood group factor. On redirect examination the State elicited from the witness that he had tested a sample of Mills' blood and determined that it was group A blood. Mills claims that the trial court erred in permitting this testimony. The short answer to this contention is that no objection was interposed in the trial court to the question which brought forth the response that the blood obtained from Mills was determined to be group A blood. Maryland Rule 522 d 2 requires that objection to the admissibility of evidence shall be made at the time when such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent, otherwise the objection shall be treated as waived. There having been no objection, the point is not preserved for appellate review.