Case ID: or_324/html/0297-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted January 10, 1995;
    reassigned July 8,
    decision of the Court of Appeals and judgment of the circuit court affirmed October 11, 1996
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review, v. HERBERT JACKSON FUTCH, Petitioner on Review.
    
    (CC88-1270; CA A67775; SC S41127)
    924 P2d 832
    Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause on behalf of petitioner on review. With her on the petition for review was David K. Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Salem.
    Janet A. Metcalf, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause on behalf of respondent on review. With her on the response brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, and Graber, Justices.
    
    
      
       Unis, J., retired June 30, 1996, and did not participate in this decision. Durham, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
    
   PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for aggravated murder and sodomy in the first degree. He contends that the trial court erred in allowing the admission of deoxyribonu-cleic acid (DNA) evidence using the Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) method. The trial court held that that scientific technique satisfied the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence articulated by this court in State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984). The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Futch, 123 Or App 176, 860 P2d 264 (1993). The sole issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling admitting the state’s RFLP DNA evidence. It did not. See State v. Lyons, 324 Or 256, 261 n 7, 924 P2d 802 (1996) (discussing admissibility of DNA evidence).

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.