## Facts

- Brad Brisbin, a restaurant owner in West Yellowstone, Montana, disappeared on November 9, 1990; his body was never found.
- Brisbin left after receiving a request from Larry T. Moore to meet at a truck stop because Moore purportedly needed transportation back to West Yellowstone.
- Brisbin was seen driving up Gallatin Canyon toward Big Sky; later that day Moore was seen driving his truck with a camper back toward West Yellowstone.
- Moore gave inconsistent accounts of his contact with Brisbin that day, including a claim that Brisbin accidentally shot himself in Moore’s truck.
- Investigators found blood and human muscle and brain tissue in Moore’s truck/camper.
- The State presented DNA evidence: RFLP testing on muscle tissue and PCR testing on brain tissue, offered to show the samples could not exclude Brisbin’s family line and were consistent with his mother.
- The trial court admitted the DNA results but excluded statistical population-frequency testimony.
- A jury convicted Moore of deliberate homicide; the trial court later dismissed two severed tampering counts at sentencing.
- Moore appealed, challenging (among other things) the admission of DNA evidence, denial of suppression of a statement, venue/voir dire rulings, alleged juror misconduct and verdict impeachment, sufficiency of evidence, and speedy trial.

## Issues

1. Whether DNA match/consistency testimony derived from RFLP and PCR testing is admissible under expert-evidence standards when statistical frequency evidence is excluded.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting DNA results from muscle and brain tissue based on alleged reliability and chain-of-custody defects.
3. Whether Moore’s statement to law enforcement during transport should have been suppressed.
4. Whether pretrial publicity required a change of venue or individual voir dire.
5. Whether alleged juror misconduct required a new trial and whether juror testimony could be used to impeach the verdict.
6. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a deliberate-homicide conviction despite the absence of a body and the exclusion of DNA statistics.
7. Whether Moore was denied a speedy trial.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the DNA test results were properly admitted under Montana Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert reliability analysis, even though statistical frequency evidence was excluded.
- The court held challenges to chain of custody and testing limitations primarily affected weight for the jury, not admissibility, and found no abuse of discretion in admitting the muscle- and brain-tissue DNA results.
- The court upheld denial of suppression of Moore’s transport statement.
- The court upheld denial of change of venue and individual voir dire, finding no showing of actual or presumed juror prejudice.
- The court upheld denial of a new trial and rejection of juror testimony offered to impeach the verdict under limits on juror impeachment.
- The court held the circumstantial evidence, viewed most favorably to the prosecution, was sufficient to support the verdict.
- The court rejected the speedy-trial claim under Montana’s multi-factor analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Scientific expert evidence is admissible when it is relevant and the proponent shows the underlying methodology is reliable under Rule 702 and Daubert-type criteria (including testability, peer review, standards, error rates, and acceptance).
- DNA match/consistency evidence derived from reliable RFLP and PCR methods may be admitted even if population-frequency statistics are excluded; the absence of statistics generally affects evidentiary weight rather than admissibility.
- Chain-of-custody shortcomings typically go to weight, not admissibility, when the proponent provides sufficient foundational continuity for the evidence.
- A change of venue based on pretrial publicity requires a showing of actual prejudice or a level of pervasive prejudice warranting a presumption; juror impartiality may be assessed through voir dire.
- Juror testimony to impeach a verdict is limited to narrow categories; alleged misconduct outside those limits generally cannot be used to attack the verdict.
- A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence if, when viewed favorably to the prosecution, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Moore’s deliberate-homicide conviction and approved admission of RFLP and PCR DNA match/consistency evidence under Rule 702 and Daubert reliability standards, holding that exclusion of statistical frequency testimony did not bar admission and instead affected the weight of the DNA evidence for the jury.


State v. Moore, 885 P.2d 457 (Mont. 1994)