Court Opinion

ID: 9764236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:16:28.21696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.169815
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. I would affirm the conviction and judgment. I am not willing at this juncture to exclude luminol testing as irrelevant in every instance where the presence of human blood is not confirmed. That is what the majority opinion does. I believe that the test is probative as a preliminary screen for the presence of blood, which is exactly what it was used for in this case. No one contends that luminol testing is conclusive for human blood or that it does not show positive for other substances and even some metals. But these points were explored on cross-examination by defense counsel and argued to the jury. Thus, it becomes a matter of what weight to accord the test rather than its admissibility. Commonwealth v. Yesilciman, 406 Mass. 736, 550 N.E.2d 378 (1990). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed this point in Yesilciman. In that case, it could not be determined whether occult blood found in the defendant’s car and on his clothing was human or animal; nor could the age of the blood be ascertained. The court observed that evidence is not rendered prejudicial merely because it is inconclusive. The court further pointed out that the defendant’s counsel had extensively argued the speculativeness of the testing. It then concluded that the weight to be given the test was a matter for the jury. So should it be in this case. I would affirm the admission of this evidence and let the jury assess its value. Hays, J., joins.