Opinion ID: 1175974
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Resemblance as Proof of Paternity.

Text: The introduction of resemblance evidence as proof of paternity is justified only if general or specific resemblance of a child to his parent has a basis in scientific fact. We address ourselves first to the relevancy of general resemblance to the ultimate issue of paternity. The assumption that inferences concerning paternity may be drawn by the fact finder, as a matter of common knowledge, from the general resemblance of a child to the alleged parent has long been accepted and generally unquestioned. [3] Indeed, in the present case the trial court stated that one reason for allowing the exhibition was to permit the jury to generally appraise the physical characteristics of the baby. But if general resemblance evidence is to be used to prove paternity, then a child's face must be inherited as a unit from the parent. [4] This is simply contrary to well settled scientific evidence. [5] If a child's face is not inherited as a unit, then any evidence such as an exhibition of the child or testimony by an expert for the purpose of showing general resemblance is irrelevant in determining paternity and can work only to the prejudice of the defendant. Wigmore himself rejected general facial resemblance as proof of paternity, while arguing that specific resemblance may be proven by an exhibition to the jury. 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 166 at 626 (3d ed. 1940).