Opinion ID: 1351145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Blood type testimony

Text: As noted above, an expert testified he tested stains on Scheffler's clothing, and he found type A antigen of the AOB system in the semen recovered from Scheffler's panties (see generally People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, 529 et seq. [220 Cal. Rptr. 637, 709 P.2d 440] [explaining the technology]). Because Scheffler had type O blood, the expert concluded the type A antigen was contributed by the semen. Scheffler's husband was a type O positive secreter, and defendant was a type A positive secreter. The testimony showed defendant could have deposited the semen found on Scheffler, and he was within 32 percent of the male population that are type A positive secreters. Defendant asserts for the first time that, for two reasons, the testimony should not have been allowed. a. Admissibility of the blood tests. (28) Citing Brown, supra, 40 Cal.3d 512, 528-535, defendant asserts the evidence should not have been admitted because such tests have not gained general acceptance in the medical community. As in People v. Coleman (1988) 46 Cal.3d 749 [251 Cal. Rptr. 83, 759 P.2d 1260], however, we reject the claim because it was not raised below ( id., at pp. 776-778). In any event, as we noted in Coleman, supra, recent Court of Appeal decisions have rejected the identical claim on the merits. ( Id., at p. 778, fn. 23.) b. Statistical evidence. (29) Citing People v. Collins (1968) 68 Cal.2d 319, 328-329 [66 Cal. Rptr. 497, 438 P.2d 33, 36 A.L.R.3d 1176], defendant also asserts the court erred in allowing the expert to testify that his review of the test results placed defendant within 32 percent of the male population. A similar claim was also raised in Coleman, supra, 46 Cal.3d at pages 776-778, and for the same reasons we reject it in this case as well.