WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5271

AN ACT RELATING TO TOWNS AND CITIES -- RETIREMENT OF MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Stephen Casey and 9 co-sponsors

Expands who can seek post-conviction DNA testing and lowers the bar to order it, allowing more testing to challenge identity in felonies.

03/27/2025 Committee recommended measure be held for further study
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5271

Summary — HB 5271 (Post‑Conviction DNA Testing)

Status: Referred to Committee on Government Operations
Introduced: March 14, 2025
Sponsor (original): Rep. Kara Hope (companion: SB 2735)
Subject: Criminal procedure — post‑conviction DNA testing (amends MCL 770.16)

Purpose / Intent

HB 5271 revises Michigan’s post‑conviction DNA testing statute (MCL 770.16) to broaden access to testing, modernize evidentiary standards for ordering testing, clarify what qualifies as “biological material,” and extend preservation obligations for evidence that could be subject to future DNA testing. The goal is to make testing more available in cases where modern DNA methods can meaningfully affect the identity issues underlying a conviction.

Key provisions and changes

  • Definition of biological material: explicitly includes any evidence with a reasonable probability of containing quantities of DNA from any human body product.
  • Who may file: the bill removes certain prior distinctions (as reported in committee) so that defendants convicted of a felony (including those who pleaded guilty, not only those convicted at trial) may petition for post‑conviction DNA testing; it also eliminates the requirement that defendants convicted before January 8, 2001 be incarcerated to obtain testing.
  • Grounds required in petition: a petition must show either
    • the identified biological material was not previously subjected to DNA testing, or
    • it was previously tested and (i) the defendant requests testing using methods/technology reasonably likely to produce more accurate or probative results, or (ii) the court finds granting testing is in the interest of justice.
  • Lowered threshold to order testing: under the bill, the court is required to order DNA testing if the defendant presents prima facie evidence that (1) the biological material sought is material to the issue of the defendant’s identity as perpetrator/accomplice and (2) a sample is available for testing. This removes the current requirement that the defendant also prove, by clear and convincing evidence, factors such as prior testing status and that identity was at issue at trial.
  • Outcome procedures:
    • If testing is inconclusive or shows the defendant is the source, the motion for new trial is denied and the defendant’s DNA is submitted to the state database.
    • If testing “calls into question” the defendant’s identity as perpetrator, the court must appoint counsel and hold a hearing to determine whether the new results (and any other new evidence) make a different outcome probable on retrial.
    • Prosecutor may request retesting; the court must order retesting and stay the new‑trial motion pending results.
  • Preservation obligations expanded: investigating agencies must preserve identified biological material for as long as a defendant is incarcerated or otherwise under state jurisdiction — including while on probation or parole, required to register under the Sex Offenders Registration Act, or assigned youthful trainee status — rather than only while incarcerated.

Who is affected

  • Defendants convicted of felonies (including those who pleaded guilty) seeking post‑conviction DNA testing.
  • Prosecutors and courts (new notice/hearing and retesting procedures).
  • Law enforcement agencies, medical examiners, and hospitals (expanded preservation and search obligations).
  • State DNA laboratory intake (submission of new profiles when tests exclude defendants).

Procedural / fiscal notes

  • Fiscal impact: indeterminate. Increased petitions and granted tests could increase court caseloads and testing costs; indigent petitioners’ tests would be borne by the state if the court so finds.
  • Legislative status (from provided record): introduced and, per the bill header, currently referred to the Committee on Government Operations. The bill has been considered in earlier committee/substitute forms (committee report and substitute versions available) and drew support in testimony from entities including the Department of the Attorney General, State Appellate Defender Office, and innocence organizations.

If you’d like, I can produce a short checklist for defense counsel or advocacy groups describing next steps or practical implications (e.g., how to draft a petition under the bill’s standards).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.