State v. Moore
Montana Supreme Court
885 P.2d 457 (1994)
- Written by Christine Raino, JD
Facts
Brad Brisbin disappeared on November 9, 1990. His body was never recovered and Larry Moore (defendant) was tried for Brisbin’s murder. At trial, Brisbin’s wife testified that Moore had asked her husband to meet Moore at a truck stop and evidence showed that Moore was seen returning in his truck from the area to where Brisbin had travelled earlier in the day. Moore made various conflicting statements, including statements that Moore and Brisbin had been together and that Brisbin had an accident with a gun in Moore’s truck. The court denied the defense’s pretrial motion to preclude DNA evidence, but granted the defense’s motion to exclude testimony about statistical calculations based on the DNA evidence. The results of restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) types of DNA analysis on blood, muscle and brain tissue found in the cab of Moore’s truck were admitted into evidence. Experts from the testing labs testified that the muscle samples tested using RFLP analysis “could not be excluded as having come from” the biological father of Brisbin’s children, and that the tissue tested using PCR analysis was “consistent with” Brisbin’s mother’s DNA. Moore was convicted and appealed his conviction to the Montana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.