(a) In the trial of any criminal action or proceeding in any court in which the question of parentage arises, regardless of any presumptions with respect to parentage, the court before whom the matter may be brought, upon motion of the State or the defendant, shall order that the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child submit to any blood tests and comparisons which have been developed and adapted for purposes of establishing or disproving parentage and which are reasonably accessible to the alleged-parent defendant, the known natural parent, and the child. The results of those blood tests and comparisons, including the statistical likelihood of the alleged parent's parentage, if available, shall be admitted in evidence when offered by a duly qualified, licensed practicing physician, duly qualified immunologist, duly qualified geneticist, or other duly qualified person. Upon receipt of a motion and the entry of an order under the provisions of this subsection, the court shall proceed as follows:
(1) Where the issue of parentage is to be decided by a jury, where the results of those blood tests and comparisons are not shown to be inconsistent with the results of any other blood tests and comparisons, and where the results of those blood tests and comparisons indicate that the alleged-parent defendant cannot be the natural parent of the child, the jury shall be instructed that if they believe that the witness presenting the results testified truthfully as to those results, and if they believe that the tests and comparisons were conducted properly, then it will be their duty to decide that the alleged-parent is not the natural parent; whereupon, the court shall enter the special verdict of not guilty; and
(2) By requiring the State or defendant, as the case may be, requesting the blood tests and comparisons pursuant to this subsection to initially be responsible for any of the expenses thereof and upon the entry of a special verdict incorporating a finding of parentage or nonparentage, by taxing the expenses for blood tests and comparisons, in addition to any fees for expert witnesses allowed per G.S. 7A-314 whose testimonies supported the admissibility thereof, as costs in accordance with G.S. 7A-304; G.S. Chapter 6, Article 7; or G.S. 7A-315, as applicable.
(b) Repealed by Session Laws 1993, c. 333, s. 2.
(b1) In the trial of any civil action in which the question of parentage arises, the court shall, on motion of a party, order the mother, the child, and the alleged father-defendant to submit to one or more blood or genetic marker tests, to be performed by a duly certified physician or other expert. The court shall require the person requesting the blood or genetic marker tests to pay the costs of the tests. The court may, in its discretion, tax as part of costs the expenses for blood or genetic marker tests and comparisons. Verified 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. Any party objecting to or contesting the procedures or results of the blood or genetic marker tests shall file with the court written objections setting forth the basis for the objections and shall serve copies thereof upon all other parties not less than 10 days prior to any hearing at which the results may be introduced into evidence. The person contesting the results of the blood or genetic marker tests has the right to subpoena the testing expert pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure. If no objections are filed within the time and manner prescribed, the test results are admissible as evidence of paternity without the need for foundation testimony or other proof of authenticity or accuracy. The results of the blood or genetic marker tests shall have the following effect:
(1) If the court finds that the conclusion of all the experts, as disclosed by the evidence based upon the test, is that the probability of the alleged parent's parentage is less than eighty-five percent (85%), the alleged parent is presumed not to be the parent and the evidence shall be admitted. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence;
(2) If the experts disagree in their findings or conclusions, the question of paternity shall be submitted upon all the evidence;
(3) If the tests show that the alleged parent is not excluded and that the probability of the alleged parent's parentage is between eighty-five percent (85%) and ninety-seven percent (97%), this evidence shall be admitted by the court and shall be weighed with other competent evidence;
(4) If the experts conclude that the genetic tests show that the alleged parent is not excluded and that the probability of the alleged parent's parentage is ninety-seven percent (97%) or higher, the alleged parent is presumed to be the parent and this evidence shall be admitted. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. (1949, c. 51; 1965, c. 618; 1975, c. 449, ss. 1, 2; 1979, c. 576, s. 1; 1993, c. 333, s. 2; 1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 733, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2023 · leading case:
Johnson v. Johnson, 461 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
Johnson v. Johnson, 461 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 90× “The legal issue presented is a narrow one: Does the language of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 8-50.1 in effect when this action originated confer standing upon an alleged natural parent such as Mr.”
State v. Camp, 209 S.E.2d 754 (N.C. 1974).
· cites it 12× “§ 49-7; G.S. § 8-50.1. G.S. § 8-50.1 further provides that ".”
Garrison Ex Rel. Chavis v. Barnes, 450 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 20× “Notwithstanding the mandatory provisions of NCGS 8-50.1, the Court erroneously denied the defendant's request and motion on the purported basis that he had waived his right to such a test by failing to have the test conducted on occasions prior to the filing of the action and…”
In Re Byrd, 552 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion and a *146 motion for blood tests pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1(b1). On 13 August 1998, the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted the request for a blood test.”
Wright v. Wright, 188 S.E.2d 317 (N.C. 1972).
· cites it 12× “Order Requiring Blood-Grouping Tests The validity of Judge Webb’s order requiring plaintiff, the child and defendant to submit to blood-grouping tests depends largely upon the interpretation to be given the provisions of G.S. 8-50.1. G.S. 8-50.1 provides: “Competency of evidence…”
Helms v. Landry, 671 S.E.2d 347 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “"In cases where the issue of paternity has not been litigated, however, or in cases where the alleged father has never admitted paternity, G.S. § 8-50.1 controls and the request for a paternity test will be allowed.”
State v. Jackson, 358 S.E.2d 679 (N.C. 1987).
· cites it 9× “Defendant argues that although N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1 makes the statistical results of a paternity test admissible, the statute does not permit an expert to offer an opinion as to the probability that a defendant is the father of a child.”
Withrow v. Webb, 280 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 6× “G.S. § 8-50.1 is dismissed; issue of paternity between defendant and the minor child, Holly Lisa Webb, having been previously adjudicated by the court.”
Smith v. Price, 340 S.E.2d 408 (N.C. 1986).
· cites it 3× “N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1(b)(l). The legislature has not mandated any weight to blood tests which do not exclude the putative father.”
Jeffries v. Moore, 559 S.E.2d 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 94× “1, in effect when that action originated, did not confer standing upon an alleged parent to compel a presumed father (husband) to submit to a blood test to determine the parentage of a child born during the marriage of the husband and mother.”
State v. Hunter, 261 S.E.2d 189 (N.C. 1980).
· cites it 2× “G.S. § 8-50.1. By his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in receiving into evidence expert testimony that the prosecuting witness had been sexually penetrated a short time before a medical examination was conducted.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b): 5 cases
Johnson v. Johnson, 461 S.E.2d 369 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).
“The legal issue presented is a narrow one: Does the language of N.C.Gen.Stat. § 8-50.1 in effect when this action originated confer standing upon an alleged natural parent such as Mr.”
Garrison Ex Rel. Chavis v. Barnes, 450 S.E.2d 554 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“Notwithstanding the mandatory provisions of NCGS 8-50.1, the Court erroneously denied the defendant's request and motion on the purported basis that he had waived his right to such a test by failing to have the test conducted on occasions prior to the filing of the action and…”
Jeffries v. Moore, 559 S.E.2d 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
“1, in effect when that action originated, did not confer standing upon an alleged parent to compel a presumed father (husband) to submit to a blood test to determine the parentage of a child born during the marriage of the husband and mother.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b)(2): 1 case
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b)(l): 1 case
Smith v. Price, 340 S.E.2d 408 (N.C. 1986).
“N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1(b)(l). The legislature has not mandated any weight to blood tests which do not exclude the putative father.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b1): 7 cases
In Re Byrd, 552 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. 2001).
“Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion and a *146 motion for blood tests pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1(b1). On 13 August 1998, the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted the request for a blood test.”
Helms v. Landry, 671 S.E.2d 347 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
“"In cases where the issue of paternity has not been litigated, however, or in cases where the alleged father has never admitted paternity, G.S. § 8-50.1 controls and the request for a paternity test will be allowed.”
Jeffries v. Moore, 559 S.E.2d 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
“1, in effect when that action originated, did not confer standing upon an alleged parent to compel a presumed father (husband) to submit to a blood test to determine the parentage of a child born during the marriage of the husband and mother.”
In Re Ldb, 617 S.E.2d 288 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b1)(1): 2 cases
In Re Ldb, 617 S.E.2d 288 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(b1)(4): 3 cases
In Re Ldb, 617 S.E.2d 288 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(bl): 6 cases
In Re Byrd, 552 S.E.2d 142 (N.C. 2001).
“Respondent filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion and a *146 motion for blood tests pursuant to the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 8-50.1(b1). On 13 August 1998, the court denied the motion for summary judgment and granted the request for a blood test.”
Helms v. Landry, 671 S.E.2d 347 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
“"In cases where the issue of paternity has not been litigated, however, or in cases where the alleged father has never admitted paternity, G.S. § 8-50.1 controls and the request for a paternity test will be allowed.”
Jeffries v. Moore, 559 S.E.2d 217 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
“1, in effect when that action originated, did not confer standing upon an alleged parent to compel a presumed father (husband) to submit to a blood test to determine the parentage of a child born during the marriage of the husband and mother.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-50.1(bl)(4): 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.