Court Opinion

ID: 9702143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:56:30.589173+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:34.034329
License: Public Domain

E. A. Quinnell, J.
(concurring). I concur separately in order to address the admissibility of blood or other serologic-typing evidence.
The admission of blood-typing evidence in this case was not error. Such evidence is generally held to be admissible.
The forensic use of these tests arises principally in two areas-identifying the perpetrators of violent crimes or sexual offenses from traces of blood or semen and ascertaining parentage in child support cases or other litigation. In general, the courts have moved from an initial position of mistrust of such evidence to the present stage of taking judicial notice of the scientific acceptance or acceptability of serologic and related tests. It is recognized that if the suspect’s antigens do not match those in the sample found at the scene of a crime, then the incriminating trace does not consist of his *571blood. On the other hand, there is a difference of judicial opinion when it comes to evidence showing that there is a match. Since some combinations of antigens are relatively common, a few courts have dismissed the positive test results for these antigens as irrelevant. The better view-and the clear majority position-is that positive findings are neither irrelevant nor so innately prejudicial as to justify a rule against their admission. [McCormick, Evidence (3d ed), § 205, pp 618-619.]
Further, in this day of extensive publicity regarding organ transplants and rejection because of . incompatible tissue types, it is safe to assume that the public is aware that rather sophisticated serologic typing is possible; and it is further safe to assume that some members of the jury will assume that blood-typing even as to bodily fluid stains can be accomplished. The prosecution must be allowed to introduce the blood-typing evidence in order to refute any inference the jury might draw from the absence of blood-typing evidence. Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions 3:1:04 or 3:1:05.
However, the admissibility of blood-typing evidence should be governed by standards announced most recently in People v Trevino, 155 Mich App 10, 15-16; 399 NW2d 424 (1986):
[W]e find that admission of the blood typing evidence is not error when there is other competent evidence linking defendant to the crime, when the jurors have been properly cautioned about the use of such evidence in their deliberations, and when a proper foundation has been laid for admission of such evidence.
As noted in the lead opinion, there was other competent evidence linking defendant to the crime *572and the proper foundation was laid for the admission of such evidence.
The court in this case did not give any cautionary instructions, but that was unnecessary in view of the testimony of Robert Avery, the scientist who indicated that the blood tests established only that the defendant could not be eliminated as a perpetrator of the offense. In view of that testimony from the witness, a cautionary instruction from the court was not necessary since the testimony itself was so limited.
I do suggest that an appropriate cautionary instruction would inform the jury that the blood-type evidence was received for the limited purpose of showing only that the defendant could not be excluded as the perpetrator of the offense and also that the evidence has no value whatever in identifying any specific individual within the group of people having that same blood type.