Hurd v. State, 46861
| Decision Date | 24 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 46861,No. 1,46861,1 |
| Citation | 125 Ga.App. 353,187 S.E.2d 545 |
| Parties | Russell K. HURD v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. Ralph Burger, Atlanta, for appellant.
Hinson McAuliffe, Sol., James L. Webb, Frank A. Bowers, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction and sentence for bastardy, complaining principally of the admission into evidence, over objection, of the results of a paternity blood test which did not establish nonpaternity but indicated only that defendant was among 43% of the male population that could have fathered the child. As we understand it, this was the third trial of the case. There seems to be no dispute that defendant, the mother and the child all submitted to the tests upon defendant's request and by agreement between the solicitor's office and defendant's former counsel before the first trial. The terms of the agreement, however, are not clear, the State contending it was agreed that if the tests excluded defendant as the father the case would be dead-docketed, and if he were not excluded the State could introduce the results in evidence. It appears that Mr. Bowers, assistant solicitor, tried the case the third time, and that Mr. Webb, assistant solicitor, handled matters prior to that. The State relies upon the following colloquy at the third trial to establish its interpretation of the agreement:
Held:
1. The purported agreement was not in writing. It does not appear to have been made in open court. Its terms are uncertain. The trial court entered no written order establishing its terms at the time the blood tests were ordered, nor were they established by the rulings admitting the results of the tests into evidence. Under these circumstances this court can make no determination as to whether the results of the tests were admissible on the third trial by virtue of the purported stipulation or agreement, and the enumeration of error complaining of the admission of the results must be disposed of without regard to the purported agreement.
2. The result of the blood tests in the instant case did not establish nonpaternity but indicated only that defendant was among 43% of the male population that could have fathered the child. There is no statute in this jurisdiction which governs the admissibility of paternity blood tests in a criminal case, nor is there any controlling case law dealing with the admissibility of inconclusive results of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whiteway Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Childs
...v. State, 123 Ga.App. 857(2), 182 S.E.2d 701. And see City of Macon v. Smith, 117 Ga.App. 363, 372(6), 160 S.E.2d 622; Hurd v. State, 125 Ga.App. 353(1), 187 S.E.2d 545. 3. There is sufficient evidence which, if believed by the jury, would authorize them to find that plaintiff entered the i......
-
State ex rel. Hausner v. Blackman
...was substantially and unfairly prejudicial to the defendant." 7 Kan.App.2d at 698-99, 644 P.2d 490. We agree. In Hurd v. State, 125 Ga.App. 353, 187 S.E.2d 545 (1972), the court held that blood grouping test results which did not establish nonpaternity, but indicated only that the defendant......
-
Miller v. State
...in regard to a blood test knowing that such a paternity test was inadmissible. Counsel for defendant cites Hurd v. State, 125 Ga.App. 353, 355-357(2), 187 S.E.2d 545, wherein this court in 1972 reversed a bastardy case because of the admissibility of a paternity blood test which was inclusi......
-
Britten v. State
...1591 (1983). Paternity blood testing prior to development of HLA testing was far less reliable. Id. See generally Hurd v. State, 125 Ga.App. 353(2), 187 S.E.2d 545 (1972). As a general rule, motions for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are not favored. Jones v. State, 15......