Opinion · Orlaw Oregon

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

STATE OF Or., Respondent on Rev., v. GARY KENNETH HERZOG, Petitioner onReview., 924 P.2d 817 (Or. 1996)

Type
Opinion
Court
Orlaw Oregon
Jurisdiction
Orlaw
Date
1996-10-11
Topic
general

STATE v. HERZOG, 324 Or. 294 (1996) 924 P.2d 817 STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review, v. GARY KENNETH HERZOG, Petitioner onReview. CC C890691CR, C890738CR, C890739CR; CA A66029 (Control), A66030, A66031; SCS41051Oregon 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.[fn*] [fn*] Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Alan C. Bonebrake, Judge. 125 Or.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed STATE v. HERZOG, 324 Or. 294 (1996). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

STATE v. HERZOG,324 Or. 294(1996)
924 P.2d 817
STATE OF OREGON,Respondent on Review,v. GARY KENNETH HERZOG,Petitioner on
Review.
CC C890691CR, C890738CR, C890739CR; CA A66029 (Control), A66030, A66031; SC
S41051
Oregon 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.fn*
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.fn**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 inState 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. 256,261n 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
  1. Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Alan C. Bonebrake, Judge.125 Or. App. 10,864 P.2d 1362(1993). ↩
  2. 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. ↩