Appeal, No. 92, April T., 1958, from judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Washington County, May T., 1957, No. 267, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Richard Gromo. Judgment of sentence reversed and new trial granted.
Gaylord W. Greenlee, with him McCune and Greenlee, for appellant.
Thomas J. Terputac, Assistant District Attorney, with him P. Vincent Marino, First Assistant District Attorney, and Michael A. Hanna, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 520]
The defendant has appealed from his sentence after conviction by a jury on a charge of fornication and bastardy. He contends that the court below erroneously refused both his motion in arrest of judgment and his motion for a new trial.
At the trial, Dr. Howard Quittner, a qualified pathologist of Washington, Pa., testified for the defendant that the results of blood grouping tests made of the defendant, the prosecutrix, and the child established that the defendant could not have been the father of the child. The integrity and competency of the physician, and the accuracy of the tests were not questioned.
For the reasons set forth in Commonwealth v. Coyle, 190 Pa. Superior Ct. 509, 154 A.2d 412, filed herewith, we are granting a new trial. What was said in that case is applicable here.
In the Coyle case the defendant was excluded as the father by the A-B-O system of blood grouping. Here the defendant was excluded as the father by the Rh-Hr blood tests. The latter tests are more complicated and were more recently accepted as reliable blood grouping tests than the A-B-O and M-N systems. The Commonwealth
[ 190 Pa. Super. Page 521]
argues that we should not accept these tests, particularly since the A-B-O and M-N tests made in this case did not exclude the defendant as the possible father of the child. The medical literature on the subject of blood testing makes it clear that each test independently can prove non-paternity, and that an exclusion on the basis of any one of the three tests is sufficient to establish that the accused could not be the father. 23 N.Y.U. Law Quarterly Review 159.
An examination of both the legal and the medical authorities convinces us that the Rh-Hr tests are firmly established as reliable, and that along with the A-B-O, and the M-N tests, they should be accepted by the courts of the Commonwealth in proceedings to establish paternity where evidence of the tests is ...