{ "id": 11709453, "name": "ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. ANNE R. SHAFFER (STOUT), Plaintiff v. TODD A. SHAFFER, Defendant 1; RONALD WAYNE HAMILTON, JR., Defendant 2", "name_abbreviation": "Rockingham County Department of Social Services ex rel. Shaffer v. Shaffer", "decision_date": "1997-05-06", "docket_number": "No. COA96-757", "first_page": "197", "last_page": "201", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "126 N.C. App. 197" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "107 N.C.App. 745", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527970 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/107/0745-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 S.E.2d 784", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "786" }, { "parenthetical": "trial court erred in admitting blood test in paternity action where only evidence as to proper chain of custody was expert witness who \"had no personal knowledge\" concerning the test" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "479 S.E.2d 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "125 N.C. App. 131", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11865755 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "135" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/125/0131-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.E.2d 184", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "291 N.C. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558677 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "465" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/291/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N.C.App. 745", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527970 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "749" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/107/0745-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 8342, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.86486014027979e-08, "percentile": 0.4592555396086799 }, "sha256": "93d942f8eeffa380cfee2bee275ee9799a5bc65b741fd2d4adb23e666194b1a0", "simhash": "1:39b936f0b60f7c38", "word_count": 1346 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:11:14.463583+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WALKER and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. ANNE R. SHAFFER (STOUT), Plaintiff v. TODD A. SHAFFER, Defendant 1; RONALD WAYNE HAMILTON, JR., Defendant 2" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nRonald Wayne Hamilton, Jr. (defendant) appeals a jury verdict finding that he is the father of Margaret Anne Shaffer (Margaret), the daughter of Anne R. Shaffer (plaintiff).\nMargaret was born on 22 December 1989, at which time plaintiff was married to Todd Shaffer (Mr. Shaffer). Plaintiff and defendant had intercourse at approximately the time when Margaret was conceived, at which time plaintiff and Mr. Shaffer were married but not living together. Plaintiff filed an action against defendant and Mr. Shaffer to establish paternity and compel support for Margaret and for reimbursement of welfare funds.\nTo establish Margaret\u2019s paternity, plaintiff, defendant, Margaret and Mr. Shaffer submitted to blood testing. Dr. Charles Kelly, a \u201cparentage\u201d director and a DNA testing laboratory director at Genetic Design, Inc. (Genetic), testified (over the objection of the defendant that there had been no showing of a proper chain of custody of the blood specimens) that based on the results of the blood tests the defendant could not be excluded from paternity, and the probability that defendant was Margaret\u2019s father is 99.99 percent. The blood tests of Mr. Shaffer showed that he did \u201cnot share any genetic markers in common with\u201d Margaret and the probability that he was Margaret\u2019s father was \u201czero percent.\u201d In giving his opinion Dr. Kelly relied on \u201cPaternity Evaluation Report[s],\u201d showing the genetic testing results of tests performed by Genetic, and \u201cClient Authorization[s] \u201d showing that the blood tested had been drawn from the parties, packaged, sealed and received unopened by Genetic.\nThe Client Authorizations show that a phlebotomist certified that blood was drawn from the persons shown on the reports (the parties to this action). The phlebotomist also signed her name indicating that she had packaged the specimens and forwarded them to Genetic. The Client Authorizations further reveal a certification by Genetic that it received the specimens and \u201cthere [was] no evidence that the package[s] [had] been opened or tampered with.\u201d The Client Authorizations contained no verifications. The Paternity Evaluation Reports did contain a statement, \u201csworn on oath,\u201d that the results were \u201ctrue and correct.\u201d Over defendant\u2019s objections both the Client Authorizations and the Paternity Evaluation Reports were admitted into evidence.\nThe dispositive issue is whether a proper chain of custody was established to admit the blood tests and allow Dr. Kelly to express an opinion on Margaret\u2019s paternity based upon those blood tests.\nDefendant contends that it was prejudicial error for the trial court to admit his and Mr. Shaffer\u2019s blood test results because the chain of custody was not properly established. We agree.\nSection 8-50.l(bl) provided that:\nVerified documentary evidence of the chain of custody of the blood specimens obtained pursuant to this subsection shall be competent evidence to establish the chain of custody. The testing expert\u2019s completed and certified report of the results and conclusions of the paternity blood test or genetic marker test is admissible as evidence without additional testimony by the expert if the laboratory in which the expert performed the test is accredited for parentage testing by the American Association of Blood Banks.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 8-50.1(bl) (1993) (emphasis added), amended by \u00a7 8-50.l(bl) (Supp. 1996).\nTo \u201cverify\u201d is to \u201caffirm formally or under oath.\u201d The American Heritage Dictionary 1343 (2d ed. 1982). Verification by affidavit requires that the verification be \u201csworn to before a notary public or other officer of the court authorized to administer oaths.\u201d 1 G. Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure \u00a7 11-7, at 196 (2d ed. 1995). To \u201ccertify\u201d is to \u201cconfirm formally as true, accurate, or genuine.\u201d The American Heritage Dictionary 255.\nIn this case there is no evidence that the chain of custody of the blood tests relied on by Dr. Kelly were verified as required by section 8-50.1(bl). The forms do not reveal any affirmations or oaths. Although the chain of custody was certified, that is not sufficient compliance with the statute. Although we are unable to understand why the legislature would require verification of the chain of custody of blood specimens when determining parentage, and only require certification as to the paternity evaluation report itself, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous in requiring more than mere certification to establish a chain of custody and it is not for this Court, \u201cunder the guise of construction,\u201d to alter the clear language. Utilities Comm\u2019n v. Edmisten, Attorney Gen., 291 N.C. 451, 465, 232 S.E.2d 184, 192 (1977). Thus, section 8-50.1(bl) cannot be relied upon to establish the chain of custody of the blood specimens.\n\u201c[I]f the test report at issue [does] not meet the prerequisites for admission under G.S. \u00a7 8-50. l(bl), the rule of Lombroia requiring independent evidence of the chain of custody governs.\u201d Catawba County v. Khatod, 125 N.C. App. 131, 135, 479 S.E.2d 270, 272 (1997). Lombroia v. Peek, 107 N.C. App. 745, 421 S.E.2d 784 (1992), requires that the blood tests be accurately identified by proving a chain of custody to insure \u201cthat the substance came from the source claimed and that its condition was unchanged.\u201d Id. at 749, 421, S.E. 2d at 786. This requirement can be met through competent evidence regarding the \u201cchain of possession, transportation and safekeeping of the blood sample sufficient to establish a likelihood that the blood tested was in fact blood drawn\u201d from the alleged parent. Id.\nNo witness testified to the proper chain of possession, transportation and safekeeping of the blood samples \u201csufficient to establish a likelihood that the blood tested was in fact blood drawn from\u201d defendant. Lombroia, 107 N.C. App. at 749, 421 S.E.2d at 786. Dr. Kelly had no personal knowledge concerning the drawing of the blood or the chain of custody of the blood samples and was only able to testify to such events from the unverified chain of custody reports. See id. (trial court erred in admitting blood test in paternity action where only evidence as to proper chain of custody was expert witness who \u201chad no personal knowledge\u201d concerning the test). Plaintiff therefore failed to establish the relevancy of the blood test results under either section 8-50.1(bl) or Lombroia and it was therefore error to admit the blood tests and allow Dr. Kelly to express an opinion based on the blood test results.\nWe do not address the plaintiffs remaining assignments of error. The entry of judgment by the trial court in accordance with the jury verdict is reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.\nNew Trial.\nJudges WALKER and McGEE concur.\n. It is interesting to note that the \u201cPaternity Evaluation Report[s]\u201d were verified and the statute only requires that these reports be certified. This error, however, is not prejudicial as the requirements of the statute were exceeded.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Office of the Rockingham County Department of Social Services, by Phyllis P Jones, for plaintiff-appellee.", "Max D. Ballinger for Ronald Wayne Hamilton, Jr., defendant-appellant.", "No brief filed by defendant-appellee Todd A. Shaffer." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROCKINGHAM COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, ex rel. ANNE R. SHAFFER (STOUT), Plaintiff v. TODD A. SHAFFER, Defendant 1; RONALD WAYNE HAMILTON, JR., Defendant 2\nNo. COA96-757\n(Filed 6 May 1997)\nEvidence and Witnesses \u00a7 1920 (NCI4th) \u2014 paternity blood tests \u2014 verification of chain of custody \u2014 insufficient evidence of chain of custody\nIn an action against defendants to establish paternity and compel support for a child whom one of the two defendants allegedly fathered, it was error for the trial court to admit defendants\u2019 blood test results into evidence where the chain of custody of the blood specimens was not verified so as to render them admissible under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 8-50.1(bl), and where there was no evidence of the chain of possession, transportation and safekeeping of the blood samples so as to render them admissible pursuant to the rule set forth in Lombroia v. Peek, 107 N.C.App. 745.\nAm Jur 2d, Evidence \u00a7 573.\nAppeal by defendant Ronald Wayne Hamilton, Jr. from judgment filed 6 November 1995 in Rockingham County District Court by Judge Richard W. Stone. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 March 1997.\nOffice of the Rockingham County Department of Social Services, by Phyllis P Jones, for plaintiff-appellee.\nMax D. Ballinger for Ronald Wayne Hamilton, Jr., defendant-appellant.\nNo brief filed by defendant-appellee Todd A. Shaffer." }, "file_name": "0197-01", "first_page_order": 235, "last_page_order": 239 }