Opinion
CC88-1270; CA A67775; SC S41127
Argued and submitted January 10, 1995;
Reassigned July 8, Decision of the Court of Appeals circuit court affirmed October 11, 1996
On review from the Court of Appeals.
Appeal from Clatsop County Circuit Court, Charles Luukinen, Judge. 123 Or. App. 176, 860 P.2d 264 (1993).
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.
PER CURIAM
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.
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 deoxyribonucleic 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 P.2d 751 (1984). The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Futch, 123 Or. App. 176, 860 P.2d 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 P.2d 802 (1996) (discussing admissibility of DNA evidence).
The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.