Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23 (2026)

Blood tests and other tests; appointment of experts; affidavits of experts; challenging test results

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Genetic testing shall be made by experts qualified as examiners of genetic tests who shall be appointed by the court pursuant to Section 93-9-21(5). The expert shall attach to the report of the test results an affidavit stating in substance:
- (a) that the affiant has been appointed by the court to administer the test and shall give his name, address, telephone number, qualifications, education and experience;
- (b) how the mother, child and alleged father were identified when the samples were obtained;
- (c) who obtained the samples and how, when and where obtained;
- (d) the chain of custody of the samples from the time obtained until the tests were completed;
- (e) the results of the test and the probability of paternity as calculated by an expert based on the test results;
- (f) the amount of the fee for performing the test; and
- (g) the procedures performed to obtain the test results. In cases initiated or enforced by the Department of Human Services pursuant to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, the Department of Human Services shall be responsible for paying the costs of any genetic testing when such testing is required by law to establish paternity, subject to recoupment from the defendant if paternity is established.

(2) The expert or laboratory shall send all parties, or the attorney of record if a party is represented by counsel, a copy of the report by first class mail. The expert or laboratory shall file the original report with the clerk of the court along with proof of mailing to the parties or attorneys. A party may challenge the testing procedure within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing the results. If either party challenges the original test results, the court shall order additional testing at the expense of the challenging party.

(3) If the court, in its discretion, finds cause to order additional testing, then it may do so using the same or another laboratory or expert. If there is no timely challenge to the original test results or if the court finds no cause to order additional testing, then the certified report shall be admitted as evidence in the proceeding as prima facie proof of its contents.

(4) Upon request or motion of any party to the proceeding, the court may require persons making any analysis to appear as a witness and be subject to cross-examination, provided that the request or motion is made at least ten (10) days before the hearing. The court may require the party making the request or motion to pay the costs and/or fees for the expert witness' appearance.

Codes, 1942, § 383-09; Laws, 1962, ch. 312, § 9; Laws, 1987, ch. 455, § 2; Laws, 1991, ch. 573, § 139; Laws, 1994, ch. 363, § 1; Laws, 1997, ch. 588, § 142; Laws, 1999, ch. 512, § 3, eff. 7/1/1999.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2000 · leading case: Ms Dept. of Human Servs. v. Helton, 741 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ms Dept. of Human Servs. v. Helton, 741 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1999). · cites it 3× “In the hearing on that motion, the chancellor learned that Helton had not been given the results of the blood test as is required by Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-23(2). After a discussion on the motion to dismiss, but before reaching the merits of the case, the chancellor granted the…”

Rafferty v. Perkins, 757 So. 2d 992 (Miss. 2000). · cites it 2× “However, the county court judge sustained a motion for new trial filed by Perkins, concluding that: (1) he had erred in allowing into evidence the results of the paternity blood tests taken by Easter and Justin, because they were not performed in accordance with Miss.Code Ann. §…”

Harkins v. Fletcher, 499 So. 2d 773 (Miss. 1986). “Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23 (1972). In Davis v.”

Groves v. Slaton, 733 So. 2d 349 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “The trial judge was aware of Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-23 which outlines basic principles for blood tests, experts, and challenges to test results.”

Mississippi Dep't of Human Servs. v. Douglas Helton (Miss. 1995). · cites it 3× “In the hearing on that motion, the chancellor learned that Helton had not been given the results of the blood test as is required by Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23 (2). After a discussion on the motion to dismiss, but before reaching the merits of the case, the chancellor granted the…”

Lisa Marie Fry Perkins Rafferty v. Vernon Wayne Perkins, Jr. (Miss. 1997). · cites it 2× “However, the county court judge sustained a motion for new trial filed by Perkins, concluding that: (1) he had erred in allowing into evidence the results of the paternity blood tests taken by Easter and Justin, because they were not performed in accordance with Miss. Code Ann.…”

Lisa Marie Fry Perkins Rafferty v. Vernon Wayne Perkins, Jr. (Miss. 1997). “The trial judge held that the blood tests were not performed in accordance with the statutory provisions of Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23 (Rev. 1994).(3) The county court judge then transferred the case back to the Chancery Court of Desoto County with a recommendation that the…”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23(2) — 2 cases

Ms Dept. of Human Servs. v. Helton, 741 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1999). “In the hearing on that motion, the chancellor learned that Helton had not been given the results of the blood test as is required by Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-23(2). After a discussion on the motion to dismiss, but before reaching the merits of the case, the chancellor granted the…”

Groves v. Slaton, 733 So. 2d 349 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). “The trial judge was aware of Miss.Code Ann. § 93-9-23 which outlines basic principles for blood tests, experts, and challenges to test results.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 93-9-23(3) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.