Court Opinion

ID: 9667111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:35:42.883638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.020763
License: Public Domain

COMBS, Justice,
concurring in part/dissenting in part.
I concur with the majority opinion save in one particular. I respectfully disagree with the conclusion that there were no preserved trial errors necessitating reversal of the verdict. There was in this case a fundamental question of fact: Is Edith Wood a child of Columbus Johnson, Jr.? At trial, Wingfield moved to require blood testing in order to obtain evidence relevant to this issue. The court denied the motion, committing, in my view, reversible error.
At no time during the life of Columbus Johnson did Ms. Wood or her mother make any claim of paternity by filing an action under KRS 406.051 or otherwise. Had this issue been raised during Johnson’s lifetime, the matter could have been resolved without difficulty. Wood’s prolonged delay, bringing this action only after Johnson’s death, creates the problem at hand. Now, with no blood sample available from Johnson, the more sophisticated HLA test cannot be performed. However, at argument it was represented by Wingfield’s counsel that the blood type of Columbus Johnson is documented and available for comparison. Typing of Ms. Wood and her mother might have excluded Johnson as the father.
As said by this Court in Perry v. Commonwealth, Ky., 652 S.W.2d 655 (1983), “blood tests are the most reliable source for the truth in paternity cases.” The probative value of blood tests in cases of this nature was also recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2202, 68 L.Ed.2d 627 (1981). Saying that “this is not a paternity action” cannot blunt the reality of paternity as a threshold issue, or the materiality of blood testing as a reliable aid in its resolution.
The question was preserved for review. It was presented by motion. It was re-argued in motions for new trial, to alter or amend the judgment, and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. It was also briefed by both appellants and appellees.
I would reverse on the issue of consanguinity, and remand for a new trial wherein blood test evidence might be obtained and admitted.