State v. Futch, 924 P.2d 832 (Or. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Futch, 924 P.2d 832 (Or. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Sampson, 6 P.3d 543 (Or. Ct. App. 2000)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review,
v.
Herbert Jackson FUTCH, Petitioner on Review.
CC CC88-1270 CA A67775 SC S41127.
Oregon Supreme Court.
Oct 11, 1996.
Published opinion
924 P.2d 832
1996 Ore. LEXIS 100
Carson, C.J., and Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley and Graber.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (1)

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, C.J., and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY and GRABER, JJ.[*]

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 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).

[*833] 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, 924 P.2d 802 (1996) (decided this date) (discussing admissibility of DNA evidence).

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

[*] 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.