Oregon Supreme Court· 10/11/1996

State v. Lyons

Citations

924 P.2d 802
324 Or. 256
1996 Ore. LEXIS 102

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

recognizing universal acceptance in the scientific community of the principles and techniques on which DNA typing and PCR replication are based
“Notwithstanding the usual deference to trial court discretion, we review that ruling on the admissibility of scientific evidence de novo.”
defining “unfair prejudice” as “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, although not always, an emotional one”
addressing both the suitability of the PCR method of identifying DNA for forensic use, and the relative lack of widespread use of that method, under the third Brown factor
defining “unfair prejudice” as “an undue tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis, commonly, although not always, an emotional one”
discussing contamination and degradation concerns that arise when DNA testing is used for forensic purposes but that do not arise when DNA samples are used for medical or other nonforensic purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carson, Gillette, Van Hoomissen, Fadeley, Graber, Durham, Vanhoomissen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

57 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Lyons

138 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.