Court Opinion

ID: 9543306
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:44:11.171058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:06.630220
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P.J.
(concurring). I agree that the lower court order should be reversed; however, I also believe that we should address the seeming conflict in Michigan law regarding the admissibility of blood tests in criminal prosecutions. Compare, People v Sturdivant, 91 Mich App 128; 283 NW2d 669 (1979), and People v Spencer, 93 Mich App 605; 286 NW2d 879 (1979).
In People v Sturdivant, this Court held that the admission of blood type evidence, which had been obtained from the testing of seminal stains, in a criminal prosecution was error where the test was used solely to include the defendant in a class of possible perpetrators of the crime. In particular, the Court noted that the blood test indicated only that the defendant was among 20% of the population that do not secrete their blood type in their body fluids. From this, the Court concluded that the blood test evidence served only to include the defendant in the class of possible assailants and thereby increased the probability of his conviction without connecting him in any affirmative way to the charged offense. Thus, because the probative value of the evidence was minimal and its prejudicial effect quite high, the Court properly found error in the admission of that evidence.
The facts of the case before us, however, are unlike those in People v Sturdivant. Rather, they resemble quite closely the facts of People v Spencer. In Spencer, the defendant was charged with criminal sexual conduct. Blood found on the defendant’s undergarments following the assault was *52chemically analyzed and found to be identical to the blood type of both the defendant and the complaining witness. However, testimony at trial tended to establish that the blood had come from the body of the complaining witness. This evidence and testimony was admitted at trial and, on appeal, this Court affirmed, holding that, although blood tests are insufficient to establish identity in the absence of additional evidence on the issue, they are generally admissible in criminal prosecutions on the question of whether particular blood was the blood of a specified individual.
The blood type evidence in this case tends to establish that defendant’s shoe was stained with human blood of a type that is different than his own but which matches that of the victim. Absent an adequate explanation for the presence on his shoe of human blood of a different blood type than his own, this evidence makes it more likely than would be in its absence that defendant participated in the homicide. Certainly, this evidence, as does all incriminating evidence, prejudices a defendant’s case for acquittal. However, the prejudice that arises from the blood type evidence in this case simply does not outweigh the probative value of that evidence. I do not doubt that the trier of fact will be able to give this evidence such weight as is appropriate. Therefore, although I would not hold that blood type evidence is per se always admissible in a criminal prosecution, I would hold that such evidence is admissible in the instant case on the facts as have been presented.