STATE v. HERZOG, 324 Or. 294 (1996)

924 P.2d 817

CC C890691CR, C890738CR, C890739CR; CA A66029 (Control), A66030, A66031; SC S41051Oregon Supreme Court.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.[*]

David E. Groom, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for review on behalf of petitioner on review.

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.[**]

Page 295

PER CURIAM

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

Page 296

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for kidnapping in the first degree (3 counts), rape in the first degree (3 counts), sodomy in the first degree (4 counts), and sexual abuse in the first degree (2 counts). 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 the court in State v. Brown, 297 Or. 404, 687 P.2d 751 (1984). The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Herzog, 125 Or. App. 10, 864 P.2d 1362 (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 the admissibility of DNA evidence).

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

Page 297