## Facts

- Doris D. Almeida, though married but separated, became pregnant and gave birth to a son on January 13, 1967, alleging the child was illegitimate and fathered by Frank Correa.
- Almeida filed a paternity petition in the Family Court of the First Circuit under HRS § 579-1 seeking (1) adjudication of paternity, (2) pregnancy and birth expenses, and (3) support, maintenance, and education until the child reached age 20.
- A jury found Correa to be the father and awarded relief in Almeida’s favor.
- Over Correa’s objection, the trial court permitted a brief exhibition of the nine-month-old child to the jury (approximately 30 seconds) so jurors could see the child and generally appraise physical characteristics.
- The court admitted Almeida’s final divorce decree and allowed her to read to the jury a declaration stating her husband had “no responsibility to support or maintain” the child.
- Without supporting medical testimony, the court instructed the jury that the average duration of pregnancy is about 280 days.
- Correa appealed, asserting evidentiary and instructional error.

## Issues

1. Whether permitting a brief exhibition of the infant to the jury, to allow appraisal of physical characteristics as circumstantial evidence of paternity, was reversible error.
2. Whether allowing the mother to read a portion of her divorce decree stating her husband had no responsibility to support the child was reversible error in the paternity trial.
3. Whether instructing the jury that average pregnancy duration is about 280 days, without medical evidence, was erroneous.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaii affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the brief exhibition of the child was within the trial court’s discretion and did not constitute reversible prejudice.
- The court held admission and limited reading of the divorce-decree recital did not warrant reversal, treating it as nonprejudicial in context.
- The court upheld the 280-day gestation instruction, concluding the fact was appropriate for judicial notice and did not require expert testimony.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has discretion to permit limited exhibition of a child in a paternity action for jurors to observe physical characteristics; such resemblance-related evidence is circumstantial and is not per se inadmissible or automatically prejudicial.
- Admission of related civil judgments or recitals (including divorce-decree statements bearing on support responsibility) may be permitted in a paternity proceeding where relevant contextually; even if cumulative, it is not reversible absent prejudice.
- Courts may take judicial notice of facts commonly known and not reasonably disputable, including that the average duration of pregnancy is approximately 280 days; a jury instruction on such a fact need not be supported by expert testimony.

## Conclusion

The Hawaii Supreme Court left intact the jury’s paternity finding and support-related judgment, ruling that the challenged child exhibition and divorce-decree recital were not prejudicial error and that the 280-day pregnancy-duration instruction was proper under judicial notice.


Almeida v. Correa, 465 P.2d 564 (Haw. 1970)