486 N.E.2d 802 (N.Y. 1985)
During defendant's rape trial, defendant objected to the introduction of evidence establishing a relationship between defendant's blood type and the blood type found in the assailant's sperm. Although the trial court sustained the objection to the extent of excluding evidence of defendant's blood type, the blood type found in the assailant's sperm and the fact that a blood test was performed on defendant was submitted to the jury. After the jury convicted defendant and the appeals court upheld the conviction, defendant sought review, and the court affirmed.
After finding that the blood typing had not completely lacked probative value and that proof of similar characteristics between defendant and the assailant was not inadmissible simply because those characteristics were shared by large segments of the population, the court held the blood typing evidence had been admissible because the evidence had been non-prejudicial to defendant.
The court affirmed an order convicting defendant of rape after the assailant's blood type and the fact that a blood test was performed on defendant was submitted to the jury because blood typing had not completely lacked probative value and the evidence had not been prejudicial.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.