blood report admissible under Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act
How later courts described this case
- blood report admissible under Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHAUER, J., Dissenting.
In matters of legal proof which directly concern security of life, liberty and property I do not like to exchange any portion of certainty, which at best is but relative, for mere convenience, which is unnecessary.
I would prefer that we concern ourselves more with advancing standards of authenticity and reliability of evidence, and enhancing certainty of proof, rather than with developing more convenient substitutes for trustworthy evidence and complacency in lower standards of certainty. The breaking down 1 of the safeguards for reliability of evidence which have been culled from the accumulated experiences of the civilized world in its quest for justice through showing the truth in free courts, does not, in my view, make for the security of *451 a free people. The end, however desirable it might appear in individual eases, does not justify the means.
A sufficient discussion of the reasons for the rule to which I think we should adhere is contained in the opinion authored by Justice Wood (Parker) for the District Court of Appeal, reported at 235 P.2d 412 . Upon the grounds stated by Justice Wood, and emphasized by considerations suggested above, I should reverse the judgment.
This case sets one more flagstone in the path departing from established standards. Illustrative of the trend see People v. Clapp (1944), 24 Cal.2d 835, 840 [ 151 P.2d 237 ]; People v. Wilson (1944), 25 Cal.2d 341, 351 [ 153 P.2d 720 ]; People v. One 1941 Mercury Sedan (1946), 74 Cal.App.2d 199, 213 [ 168 P.2d 443 ]; People v. Rochin (1950), 101 Cal.App.2d 140, 143, 149 [ 225 P.2d 1, 913 ]. But, suggesting a stoppage of the trend in its graver impingements on federal constitutional guaranties, see Rochin v. California (1952), 342 U.S. 165 [ 72 S.Ct. 205 , 96 L.Ed. -].