SANDRA JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ESTATE OF PERRY JOHNSON, JR.; AND ESTATE OF PERRY JOHNSON, JR., APPELLANTS
v.
VINCENT OSRIC JOHNSON; TAMMY JOHNSON; TRINA SURRATT; SHAYLA BRENTLEY MOORE; STACY ROGERS; DEMARLONE BELL; AND KENNETH JOHNSON, APPELLEES
APPEAL
FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. 35DR-17-369.
HONORABLE LEON N. JAMISON, JUDGE.
COUNSEL:
Brockman, Norton & Taylor, by: C. Mac Norton and Zachary
Taylor, for appellants.
McKissic & Associates, PLLC, by: Gene E. McKissic, Sr., and
Jackie B. Harris, for appellees.
ROBERT
J. GLADWIN, Judge. ABRAMSON and KLAPPENBACH, JJ., agree.
OPINION
Page 34
ROBERT
J. GLADWIN, Judge
Sandra
Johnson, administrator of the estate of Perry Johnson, Jr.,
and the estate of Perry Johnson, Jr., appeal the October 12,
2018 judgment of paternity entered by the Jefferson County
Circuit Court. The sole issue is whether the circuit court
erred in admitting appellees' reports of DNA test results
into evidence when it found substantial compliance with
Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-10-108 (Repl. 2015). We
affirm.
I.
Facts
Perry
Johnson, Jr. (P.J.), died on December 6, 2016, and Sandra
Johnson, his widow and wife of fifty years, was appointed
personal representative of the estate. A paternity action
subsequently was filed alleging that P.J. is the biological
father of the appellees, Vincent Osric Johnson, Tammy
Johnson, Trina Surratt, Shayla Brentley Moore, Stacy Rogers,
Demarlone Bell, and Kenneth Johnson. The action was initially
filed against Sandra Johnson, administrator of the estate of
Perry Johnson, Jr., but was later amended to name the estate
of Perry Johnson, Jr., as a separate defendant.
The
parties entered into a partial settlement resulting in an
order filed by the circuit court on June 1, 2017. This order,
provided, among other things, for DNA
Page 35
paternity testing initiated by appellees. It also provided
that if the DNA testing results were in proper form as
required by law for such testing and reflected a finding of
paternity of 95 percent or greater for an appellee, a
presumption of paternity would exist for that particular
person.
On
September 5, appellants filed a motion for a chain-of-custody
affidavit alleging deficiencies in a set of proffered DNA
test results. Appellants' motion was granted by the
circuit court on September 26, and the resulting order
described numerous deficiencies in the proffered test results
and set forth instructions as to how they must be cured.
Appellees filed an affidavit of test results on March 22,
2018, with attachments, including an affidavit executed by
Joy Johnson, Ph.D., the assistant lab director of DNA
Diagnostics Center, and certifications or statements
regarding the integrity of the samples. Appellants filed a
motion to enforce the chain-of-custody order and objections
to DNA testing results on April 6, in which they argued
solely that appellees had not satisfied Arkansas law
pertaining to chain of custody pursuant to Arkansas Code
Annotated section 9-10-108(a)(5)(B) (Repl. 2015). Appellees
responded to appellants' motion on April 9 and attached
to the response more than eighty pages of supporting
documents.
During
a telephone conference on April 11, the circuit court
determined that the record was complete and that it could
rule on the admissibility of the DNA records. The circuit
court entered an order on September 17 finding that appellees
were in substantial compliance with the chain-of-custody
statute, section 9-10-108(a)(5)(B). The circuit court also
found that appellants' pending motion to enforce the
chain-of-custody order was moot, thereby denying
appellants' pending motion and denying their objections
...