Horein v. Gilchrist

Michigan Court of Appeals

Horein v. Gilchrist

340 N.W.2d 301, 128 Mich. App. 332

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 12, 1983

DocketDocket No. 56203

StatusPublished

This text of 340 N.W.2d 301 (Horein v. Gilchrist) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horein v. Gilchrist, 340 N.W.2d 301, 128 Mich. App. 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:.

Defendant appeals from a jury verdict finding that he is the father of a child born to plaintiff.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant’s objection, results of a Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) blood test.

At the time of trial, MCL 722.716(d); MSA 25.496(d) prohibited the admission of blood test results as probative evidence of paternity. The statute, however, has since been amended to permit results of HLA blood tests to be admitted into evidence. 1982 PA 129. The question we must decidé is whether the amendment should be given retroactive or prospective effect.

As a general rule, statutes are to be given prospective effect only unless the Legislature indicates a contrary intent. Tulkku v Mackworth Rees Division of Avis Industires, Inc (On Remand), 101 Mich App 709, 717; 301 NW2d 46 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 897 (1981). The rule, however, is subject to various exceptions. A statute is to be given retroactive effect if it relates to procedure, McAvoy v HB Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419, 459; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), changes only a remedy, Denham v [334]*334Bedford, 407 Mich 517, 529; 287 NW2d 168 (1980), or deals with a rule of evidence, Sherberneau v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, 44 Mich App 339, 344; 205 NW2d 213 (1973); Tulkku, supra, p 717. The amendment to MCL 722.716(d); MSA 25.496(d) falls into the final exception. It provides that the result of a blood test, including an HLA test, "shall be admissible in evidence in the trial of the case”. 1982 PA 129. The amendment clearly promulgates a rule of evidence and must be given retroactive effect.

From the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the HLA blood test results into evidence at the trial.

Affirmed. No costs, a significant question of statutory construction being involved.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:.

Defendant appeals from a jury verdict finding that he is the father of a child born to plaintiff.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant’s objection, results of a Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) blood test.

At the time of trial, MCL 722.716(d); MSA 25.496(d) prohibited the admission of blood test results as probative evidence of paternity. The statute, however, has since been amended to permit results of HLA blood tests to be admitted into evidence. 1982 PA 129. The question we must decidé is whether the amendment should be given retroactive or prospective effect.

As a general rule, statutes are to be given prospective effect only unless the Legislature indicates a contrary intent. Tulkku v Mackworth Rees Division of Avis Industires, Inc (On Remand), 101 Mich App 709, 717; 301 NW2d 46 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 897 (1981). The rule, however, is subject to various exceptions. A statute is to be given retroactive effect if it relates to procedure, McAvoy v HB Sherman Co, 401 Mich 419, 459; 258 NW2d 414 (1977), changes only a remedy, Denham v [334]*334Bedford, 407 Mich 517, 529; 287 NW2d 168 (1980), or deals with a rule of evidence, Sherberneau v Metropolitan Life Ins Co, 44 Mich App 339, 344; 205 NW2d 213 (1973); Tulkku, supra, p 717. The amendment to MCL 722.716(d); MSA 25.496(d) falls into the final exception. It provides that the result of a blood test, including an HLA test, "shall be admissible in evidence in the trial of the case”. 1982 PA 129. The amendment clearly promulgates a rule of evidence and must be given retroactive effect.

From the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not err in admitting the HLA blood test results into evidence at the trial.

Affirmed. No costs, a significant question of statutory construction being involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 N.W.2d 301, 128 Mich. App. 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horein-v-gilchrist-michctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack